Bill's Notes

What story do you think you're in? One deep source of human conflict is we believe ourselves to be characters in entirely different stories, with different structures. What story you believe yourself in is critical to your worldview.

Narrative fallacy. Our natural tendency to see things unfolding as a story. Tendency to ignore things that don't fit.

Postmodern narrative -- postmodernism involves itself in a meta-story, attempts to get outside the story but agrees it's pointless to try, yet tries to create a new narrative. Critical of previous storylines (especially religious) as irrational and as oppressive of certain "marginalized" groups.

Leftist and communist storylines believe in perfectability of man. Conservative storyline insists human nature has no history -- attempt to perfect man inevitably leads to genocide and oppression.

Modernism sees freedom from religious "narrative" and replacement with a "scientific" narrative, and that human progress is possible with technology. Ran afoul of World Wars I & II.

Catholic and Christian storylines involve a different narrative, one in which life is followed by judgment, one in which God intervenes in the story.

Other religions have different storylines, different senses of what is happening in the world.

Role of epistemology --

Cultural war is essentially about competing storylines, competing narratives. The good guys and the bad guys are different.

Narrative fallacy has a name, I forget it. Insistence on closure good to some storylines, evil in others.

What story do you believe you're in.

The Resurrection -- is evidence of the purported truth of one storyline. If Christ Resurrected, then Christian storyline is correct.

Unless you come up with a new, time-traveler or space traveler storyline, in which some fancy technology invents something that can resurrect someone.

Some postmodernists hold storyline is socially constructed. Others claim it is partially socially constructed and partially determined by other factors. Mind and brain are the same thing, you have a materialistic, deterministic universe, and no real identity. Freedom is a mask for power.

Pure capitalistic narrative -- in the end, unhindered except for the rule of law, we'll all eventually be rich.

A. Available or Single?
Single.

B. Best Friend?
Jeff S. was my first best friend, and there have been many others over the years.

C. Cake or Pie?
Not anymore. But cake.

D. Drink of Choice?
Cherry Coke Zero.

E. Essentials.
Alcohol, tobacco and firearms ...
No seriously, good reading material.

F. Favorite Color?
Blue, no red ... aaarrrrgh!

G. Gummi Bears or Worms?
Not anymore.

H. Hometown?
New York -- 0 to 3
Hasbrouck Heights, N.J. -- 3 to 9.
Toms River, N.J. -- 9 to 18.
Currently, Lower Towamensing Twp, PA.

I. Indulgence?
Never buy 'em.

J. January or February?
February is closer to the end of winter and March Madness.

K. Kids and Names?
None.

L. Life is incomplete without…?
Friends.

M. Marriage Date?
No.

N. Number of Siblings?
2.

O. Oranges or Apples?
Oranges -- juice
Apples -- pie.

P. Phobias/Fears?
I'm not crazy about confined spaces, and don't like my exits blocked at any time.

Q. Favorite Quote?
"Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. Glory lasts forever." Shane Falco.

R. Reasons to smile?
Someone fat carrying a bunch of packages falls on his ass ... no, I'm kidding. I usually smile at children and dogs, don't ask me when I got so sentimental. Read "The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brien for more info.

S. Season?
Summer!

T. Tag 3 people
Or what? Okay, you, you and you.

U. Unknown Fact About Me?
I see dead people.

V. Vegetable You Hate?
Turnips. Brussel Sprouts.

W. Worst Habit?
Interrupting others.

X. Xrays You’ve Had?
Tib/fib fracture and related surgeries; teeth; right hand -- "busticated," the technician diagnosed in clinical language; left arm; assorted others.

Y. Your Favorite Foods?
Lasagna. Enchiladas. Steak. Mushrooms. Pizza. Chocolate cake with vanilla icing and coconut on top.

Z. Zodiac?

A killer in SF in the 70s.

David Frum comes up with -- seriously -- the exact same idea I had about 12 years, when I was teaching in the School District of Philadelphia. My conclusion was that the school district could not be fixed -- its institutions were too corrupt and the rules of engagement demanded all reforms would fail, and there was no political will to change the rules.

It was a difficult conclusion, but I thought correct: Not everything can be fixed. There has to be a "critical mass" of sanity within an organization and the community supporting it. In SDP, there wasn't. The organization itself was insane, and all talk of reform tiptoed around the edges of real reform.

So I concluded that the answer was simply for the city of Philadelphia to issue vouchers for private schools for the cost-per-pupil of educating, and let the market take care of the rest. There were churches through Philadelphia, which, I felt, could educate the children at the SDP's costs. And do a much better job. In fact, the SDP could retain some services -- perhaps centralized payroll and benefits, for example. Or even that could be outsourced.

David Frum makes the same suggestions:

Let me suggest a different approach. Give up.

Of the District's 130 schools, only 19 have a majority of students performing at a "proficient" level. So start by closing the 111 failing schools. Then close the DC board of education and every educational administrative agency. Sell the school buildings, and use the proceeds to help finance severance payments for the discharged teachers and administrators.

In the 19 non-failing schools, offer teachers and principals an option: In lieu of severance, they can have the building and all its contents, plus a charter to continue operating as they think best.

Then divide the educational budget into vouchers. DC spends almost $13,000 per child per year. Create a standard voucher of $10,000. Children from poor families and children rated as English-Language Learners would get a voucher worth the full $13,000. Children rated as Special Needs would get more still.

It's a crude idea, subject to many improvements. But the core insight is: stop trying to fix the unfixable. DC has failed too many kids for too long. Things are not going to improve. It's time for the bulldozers.

Interesting articles here and here on the Frankfurt School, which generated Critical Theory. Some long-time readers of this blog may know that I came face-to-face with this theory in grad school, and was astonished that such bullshit could be accepted by so many intellectuals.

Then I poked into it, and discovered it was a hall of mirrors, that it seemed on the surface to have many compelling points. I came to recognize that Critical Theory was not so much "made up bullshit," but as a series of logical steps once you accept certain premises. That is, skepticism unmoored by humanistic values or Judaeo-Christian roots, naturally progresses to this state -- that is, power relations are all. (Secular humanists and Christians are despised and ridiculed by Critical Theoriests.)

At least four or five years of my intellectual life was concerned with responding to the challenge of Critical Theory (that is, without throwing up my hand in disgust and ignoring it because I wanted to believe my own point of view.) While I was fighting off Critical Theory, I did two things: (1) I used Critical Theory against itself, especially it's radical skepticism. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if you attack knowledge, then you don't, either, so STFU; (2) Moved toward mysticism, which simply blows materialism and Critical Theory out of the water.

Later, through the help of Ron McRae and others, I came to recognize that Critical Theory is pseudo-intellectual -- it uses intellectual language, but in fact conflates and twists categories of thought, relies on obscure language and sleight-of-hand, to basically declare one set of folks should be more powerful than others. It is not rational. It is an attack on reason.

Eventually, I came to believe that Critical Theory is almost purely abstract in its thinking -- that is, it's immaterial in its approach. It concerns thoughts about thoughts about thoughts about thoughts, intellectual castles in the air, which are then brought to earth and imposed, totalitarian-style, on the rest of us.

What surprised me, in the 15 years of grad school, as how effective it's been in the real world. The whole postmodern culture of narcissism and death is all rooted in Critical Theory.

My two cents.

Spoilers: So David Chase went with the whole ambiguous ending, perhaps made most famous by the short story, "Lady or the Tiger?" In the last Sopranos scene, there's a suspicious character who looks ready to hit Tony Soprano, but the scene goes blank before we know what happens. Was Tony hit? Did he merely finish his meal? Does he face endless threats?

The idea of "Lady or the Tiger" is your choice says something about you, your expectations and demands in storytelling, particularly closure ... the author turns the story around and says, "Instead of letting you know how I see the world, I turn it around and let you choose the ending, which tells us how you see the world."

It can be done effectively, and there are situations where it's appropriate, but The Sopranos (arguably) wasn't one of them.

There's also a "point of view" issue. If that scene is from Tony's point-of-view (always difficult in a movie), then the "blank" scene is simply what happens to Tony's consciousness after getting shot. He doesn't see it coming ... so essentially, the camera retreats from a third-person limited POV to a first-person point of view. Which is problematic since we're looking at Tony at the end. However, the scene could be from AJ's or Carmela's point of view. Guess — Carmela — since Journey is playing in the background, music more her era. So the ending is Carmela's getting killed. Or all of them. Who knows? Lady or the Tiger?

Or maybe it's just Tony goes on and continues to live with his malignant narcissism. Who knows? Who cares?

I've never been thrilled with "Lady or the Tiger?" endings, because I think they're a cop-out. And the whole "ambiguous" endings, with no closure offered for the viewer/reader, has been done to death. It's preachy, saying, "You demand closure, which I won't give you because that would merely reinforce your complacent, erroneous, bourgeois worldview that demands closure where none is to be found."

However, if you buy the "sudden black" means Tony's consciousness is wiped out, you have closure. But it's your closure. The Sopranos has had scenes where Tony isn't in them ... so any denial of access to that broader point of view means the ending is ambiguous ... sorry.

My two cents. YMMV.

Here's David Chase doing the last chapter of the Gospels: "The disciplines, scattered and despondent, hear from Mary that Jesus' tomb is empty. Cue Mott the Hoople's Roll Away the Stone. Peter and John run to the tomb and see the entrance stone to the tomb moved. They look at each other. Fade to black."

Some thoughts from others:
Captain's Quarters.
Reasoned audacity.
Sister Toldjah.
Huffington Post.
Deadline Daily.
Evil Queen.
The Corner also does the POV take.
Steve Silver does a good job of running down the potential "closure" endings.

UPDATE: I also wanted to say that I haven't watched a lot of the Sopranos, but I have seen quite a few episodes. I found David Chase frequently trying too hard. Only the first year was good — after that, I found him extraordinarily manipulative. Which is one reason I didn't try to watch the episode last night (I merely read about it this morning.) Chase, I felt, was the kind of person who'd do the whole, tired "audience alienation" thing. (See Brecht.) The goal is that you say, "WTF" instead of applaud.

That said, there were some good scenes along the way ...