The Main Thing Wrong with Ad Astra

Yesterday evening I took my two granddaughters to see the movie Ad Astra.

SPOILER ALERT: Almost everything that follows is one great big SPOILER! If you don't want a spoiler, STOP READING RIGHT NOW!

The worst thing about the movie is its premise: that the "surges" that are zapping all electrical systems on Earth and its Moon are being caused by antimatter released from an expedition to Neptune to look for intelligent alien life forms.

We can even make antimatter today. One atom at a time. So it would be hopelessly expensive today to make the gram quantities of antimatter that would be needed for fast travel within the solar system. Supposing that in the near future that is depicted it will be possible to make and store gram quantities of antimatter, it still will be enormously expensive, and the expedition would only take enough for propulsion.

Presumably, the "surges" are EMPs from nuclear explosions resulting from leaking antimatter falling into the atmosphere of Neptune. An EMP strong enough to affect the whole solar system would require an enormous nuclear explosion that consumes far more antimatter than the expedition would have on board. And with multiple surges (at least two in the movie), I need to assume that the explosion is on the other side of Neptune from the orbiting expedition spacecraft. Otherwise, the explosion would destroy the spacecraft. And the explosion would light up Neptune bright enough to be seen from Earth in the daytime, so that the source of the "surges" couldn't be kept secret like they want to do in the movie.

Then, early in the movie, one of the US Space Command generals says that the explosions that cause the surges threaten to destabilize the solar system and destroy all life on Earth. The only way that could happen is if the explosions destroy Neptune, and for that you would need a planetary-size mass of antimatter.

IMHO the producers changed the plot in the middle. The premise would have been more plausible if the expedition had encountered an intelligent alien life form that is sufficiently technologically advanced to make lots and lots of antimatter, and uses it to send scout probes around the Galaxy at relativistic speeds to identify and exterminate all other intelligent life forms. Then the movie can end with the hero and his father (the commander of the expedition) using the nuclear weapon that the hero conveniently has brought with him to destroy the alien probe before it can do any more damage, like in the movie Independence Day.

As long as I'm on the subject, the other problem with the movie, from a scientific point of view, is that the various spacewalks by the hero would be totally impossible under known laws of physics. But I loved the special effects, especially how they did weightlessness.

פסיק רישא: תוצעה בלתי נמנעת?

רמב"ם הלכות שבת פרק א' הלכה ו':

עשה מעשה, ונעשת בגללו מלאכה שוודאי תיעשה בשביל אותו מעשה--אף על פי שלא נתכוון לה, חייב:  שהדבר ידוע, שאי אפשר שלא תיעשה אותה מלאכה.  כיצד:  הרי שצרך לראש עוף לשחק בו לקטן, וחתך ראשו בשבת--אף על פי שאין סוף מגמתו להריגת העוף בלבד, חייב:  שהדבר ידוע, שאי אפשר שייחתך ראש החי אלא והמוות בא בשבילו.  וכן כל כיוצא בזה.

קשה להאמין שאפילו בבבל של לפני אלפיים שנה לא היו אופציות לצעצוע מאולתר יותר טובות מראשו של עוף. אם הביטוי "פסיק רישא" בא מהריגת עוף כדי לשעשע ילד, נראה לי שזה יותר משעשע להסתכל בעוף שרץ מסביב בלי ראש, כמו פה.

אבל עדיין יש את הבעייה שמוות מיידית של העוף אינו בטוח. במקרה הזה, עוף חי בלי ראש למשך שנתיים. עם כן, מוות של עוף מחתיכת ראשו יכול להיות לא מיידית, וה"פסיק רישא" המילולי הוא אינו מלאכה האסורה בשבת מן התורה, אלא רק גרמא"".

Taking Selflessness Too Far

These are the first two paragraphs of this book review:

The ego, a necessary construction, can also become a burden. In its unrelenting focus on power, achievement and sensual gratification, it breeds a culture, both inner and outer, of oppression, insecurity, addiction and loneliness. Enough is never enough. There is always someone richer, more accomplished and more successful than you are. Spiritual traditions across the world have offered counsel. The happiness that comes from accumulation is fleeting, they remind us. There is another kind of happiness, let’s call it joy, that comes from helping others.

David Brooks has a feel for the serenity such a passion can bring. He dubs it the second mountain. While self-satisfaction is the first mountain’s primary goal, gratitude, delight and kindness spring from a life devoted to service. “In the cherry blossom’s shade,” a Japanese haiku reminds us, “there’s no such thing as a stranger.” Surrender of self awakens love and connection.

That second paragraph sounds like something that could be used to try to make women contented with their traditional roles of being just supportive of men. It also reminded me of what I've read about Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree, not necessarily specifically as in this book review that I found via Wikipedia:

But a few years later, as Nordstrom slyly recalled in a New York Times interview, "the body twitched" and sales of "The Giving Tree" soared, spurred by word of mouth from, of all quarters, Protestant ministers and Sunday-school teachers, who embraced the book as a cogent restatement of the Christian ideal of unconditional love.

By contrast, the Jewish ideal of love isn't totally unconditional. As Hillel put it,

אִם אֵין אֲנִי לִי, מִי לִי? וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי?

 Devotion to humanity is desirable, maybe even obligatory. Just as long as you remember that you are one of the humans that you need to be devoted to. "Devotion" normally does not mean "sacrifice".

Who Is Tom Bombadil?

When I heard that Stephen Colbert listens every evening to 15 minutes of a professor talking about Lord of the Rings, I went on line to look for the professor. He's Corey Olsen of Signum University. I have started catching up at the "Exploring The Lord Of The Rings With the Tolkien Professor" You Tube page. I skip the "field trips" because I'm not interested in them. I'm interested in the text. And today, in Episode 30, I finally got up to the question that I wanted to hear other people's answers to: What is Tom Bombadil?

And in the course of the discussion, it struck me that everybody, including Professor Olsen, is reading the first relevant passage wrong. Here is that passage:

'Fair Lady!' said Frodo again, after a while. 'Tell me, if my asking does not seem foolish, who is Tom Bombadil?'

'He is,' said Goldberry, staying her swift movements and smiling.

Everybody, including Professor Olsen, reads "He is" with the emphasis on the "is". BTW, that is the origin of the crazy delusion, debunked by Tolkien himself, that Tom Bombadil is Iluvatar. "He is" should be read with the emphasis on "He". Which is why Frodo is confused. Frodo already knows that that guy with the long beard who is taking care of the ponies is named "Tom Bombadil". As Professor Olsen points out, what Frodo meant, and what everybody who analyzes this stuff really means, is "what is Tom Bombadil", not "who is Tom Bombadil?"

Update on 6/8/19. In Episode 31, starting at about 30:30, Professor Olsen discusses the emphasis question.  He still puts the stress on "is" but his interpretation of Goldberry's answer is similar to my interpretation with the emphasis on "he".

How Can You Tell If a Poem is Good or Bad?

The 31 March New York Times Book Review had two letters about an essay published in the 24 February issue.

Here is the first letter:

David Orr's column On Poetry (Feb. 24) may be right about alcoholism and the dangers of drunk driving but Orr's attempted ticketing of Charles Bukowski would have greatly amused the poet. The opinions of respectable literary critics were of zero interest to him, but the fact that someone at the New York Times is attacking him 25 years after his death is evidence that he is having the last laugh. That his current publisher should exploit his popularity by reissuing much of his prodigious output is mere marketing.

Bukowski's entire project as a writer was in opposition or indifference to the standards of poetry deemed worthy of prestigious publications. He published in obscure little magazines and in John Martin's independent Black Sparrow Press. He thrived in those marginal places and was embraced by countless readers bored with most of what passed for accomplished verse. His writing will outlast the complaints of scandalized mandarins.

Here is the second letter:

David Orr writes eloquent, amusing and circuitously disapproving commentary on the retching doggerel by Charles Bukowski, whose reputation far exceeds his literary accomplishments. I agree with almost everything Orr describes so well, and his placement of Bukowski's modus operandi within a certain tradition - however dishonorable - is useful, up to a point.

But I do wish Or had simply said more bluntly what needs to be said: that Bukowski remains a thoroughly self-indulgent and odious degenerate whose drunken excursions into the world of poetry were grotesque abuses of the literary form. That we have publishers mining the dregs of his work for another book because he has this roguish reputation further degrades serious literature and insults those who care about poetry of real merit.

So was Bukowski a good poet or a bad poet? Are Bukowski's poems good or bad? You can tell good engineering from bad engineering. Good engineering works. Bad engineering doesn't work. You can tell good mathematics from bad mathematics. In good mathematics, the theorems follow logically from the axioms. In bad mathematics, they don't. You can tell good science from bad science. Good science explains natural phenomena or experimental observations. Bad science doesn't. This is true in almost all of STEM. The exceptions tend to be on the cutting edge. Like whether a mathematician accepts the axiom of choice seems to be a matter of taste. Like is there a ninth planet far out in the Oort Cloud? Unless Charles Bukowski is an outlier, poetry is different.

Poetry may be just a matter of taste, like the axiom of choice. Or like food and drink are matters of taste. Many people like alcohol. I don't like alcohol. I don't like what it does to my brain. Now, there are poems that I like. A therapist once asked me if there are any poetic writings (the Hebrew word was "שירה") that bring me to tears. I named The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and על כל אלה. The specific verses of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner are

O happy living things! no tongue

Their beauty might declare:

A spring of love gushed from my heart,

And I blessed them unaware:

Sure my kind saint took pity on me,

And I blessed them unaware.

The self-same moment I could pray;

And from my neck so free

The Albatross fell off, and sank

Like lead into the sea.

 I also admit unashamedly that my favorite poet is Dr. Seuss. My main criterion for judging poetry (and all art for that matter) is that good poetry has to be fun. Everything else is secondary.

So if the only criterion for good art vs. bad art is do you like it or don't you like it, why do we force students to learn the literary subset thereof? Or, more precisely, why do we test students on it if there are no right or wrong answers? What is there to test for? The only answer I can come up with is cultural literacy. Take some works of your own culture that are generally considered great (they need not be universally considered great) and teach the students the tools to understand them. This is hard to teach properly. Beyond understanding the basic literal meaning, there are no right or wrong answers, unlike in e.g. arithmetic where the number you get at the end is either right or wrong. For anything interpretive, the student has to be tested on how well his/her interpretation matches the text and how well s/he defends his/her interpretation. The teacher has to grade the student according to rhetorical skill, and ignore whether the student agrees with the teacher's own interpretation.

This assumes that teaching cultural literacy is valuable. The value of cultural literacy to the teacher is totally subjective. Teaching cultural literacy is valuable to the extent that perpetuating the culture is valuable. I should return to this topic in the contexts of teaching Judaica to Hiloni students in Israel and not requiring Haredim to learn the full core curriculum, just English and mathematics (or maybe English and STEM; biology can be taught to Haredim the way young Earth creationists do it in the US).

Why the Eponymous Descendants of Israel Ben Isaac are Still Here 3500 Years Later

This is a quote from a short book review in the 7 April 2019 New York Times Book Review. The book is about a tribe that hunts sperm whales.

And yet, like so much else at this moment, Lamaleran society is being threatened from all sides - by the rise of commercial fishing operations, the decline of the very animals they depend upon, politicians who value econmic growth above all else and the desire of tribal youth (in particular the girls) for a life with fewer restrictions,

Part of the explanation of the persistence of the Jews (the remaining Israelites) is that our tribal identity does not depend on our means of livelihood. 3500 years ago we were shepherds. 2500 years ag we were farmers. 1000 years ago we were merchants. Now we do STEM.

השקרים של הרבנות

לפני שבוע, הרבנות פרסמה את הסרטון הזה. הוא מלא שקרים, כדהלן:

0:35

"למה לא תגש לרב?"

למה לא תחפס בעצמך באינטרנט?

1:10

החופה מסמלת את ביתו של החתן, שלתוכו נכנסת הכלה כקניינו.

1:40

"לקדש"

זה לאסור על הכלה יחסי מין עם גבר אחר, בלי לסים שום הגבלות על החתן.

2:15

הטבעת עדיין גם אות לקניין הנישואין.

2:30

...והוא אינו מקודש לה

3:20

בפועל אין לכתובה שום משמעות אם חס וחלילה בני הזוג מתפרדים.