film studies

How much are you Uptrusting? Downtrusting? I mean pressing the green and red arrows on peoples posts and comments.

Just curious how people are using this feature, as you can't directly see who has Up and Down trusted a post.

Currently, my threshold is reasonable high. I hit UpTrust if something is well thought out/I like the thought process behind it, and/or if it presents something novel that I like/agree with/find plausible.

That means something like 1 in 10 things I read, I hit the green button. Maybe? That's very approximate, it's hard to gauge without measuring it.

And I've been using the site regularly for a couple of months, and I don't remember having downtrusted a single post/comment.

BTW, this is very much not advocacy! I've no idea if this is how I should be operating, or it would be better (for any of numerous versions of "better") for me to be doing something differently.

Movies You Should Watch But May Not Even Know About. There are hundreds of movies released each year. Only a small percentage make it to large scale theatrical screenings.   Hidden from general public sight, there are always a crop of movies that deserve attention. 

is a start. 3 movies that I enjoy for one reason or another, and believe other viewers may find worth their time. We can discuss the “why” these movies are chosen by me. We can even discuss the “really, this!?” factor of some of my choices.  I want to expand horizons, knowledge, and enjoyment of these movies.

1. Farewell, My Lovely (1975)

2. Streets of Fire (1984)

3.  The Kindred (1987)

What's your Favorite movie and why?

Mines probably Last of the Mohicans because it's amazing.

What's your Favorite movie and why?

Mines probably Last of the Mohicans because it's amazing.

What's your Favorite movie and why?

Mines probably Last of the Mohicans because it's amazing.

Second Coming of (Distributed) Christ (Consciousness). Alex Zhu on Wednesday 2/4 at 11:30 AM CT

A math and compsci guy tries to integrate mysticism and spirituality into a rigorous epistemic and a rational worldview.

knives out wake up dead man good spiritual film. Recently, I saw knives out wake up dead man on Netflix and was surprised at how poignant and special some of the scenes with the earnest priest were.

In many ways, it kind of reminds me of how this Uptrusting platform is trying to be.

In one scene, the earnest priest and the atheist detective are talking about the Catholic Church. A bit of a tense scene as I was watching with a devout Catholic with me as the detective named all the ills and lies of the church.

But at the end, the priest responds, "it's true these are all just likely stories and make believe pageantry. But the real question is whether these stories lead to a beautiful truth or a terrible lie?

It reminds me of Ernest Becker's Denial of Death where he takes an existential view that everything humans do from ambitious projects to having kids are attempts to avoid the vital lie of our mortality.

I asked at a Becker conference, is there any way out of this trap of whatever I do being based on a lie to avoid the truth of my mortality?

One scholar responded, I suppose it depends whether the vital lie is delusional or illuminating. Does it bring out truth or is it covering it over?

Anyway, strong recommend to the film. The detective who-done-it was also spectacular.

Cozy Mysteries.  

For comfort reading at the moment I'm going through the Agatha Christie Poirot novels in order. They're a blast, I highly recommend. I also recently watched the third Knives Out movie, "Wake Up Dead Man". The Knives Out movies are cozy mysteries, heavily influenced by Christie in general, and the character of Poirot specifically, but with a layer of intentional cultural commentary that's mostly missing from Christie. I loved the first movie, hated the second one, and loved the third one. If you dropped off after the second one, give it a chance, it's a surprising, delightful return to form.

In that movie, they mention the book "The Hollow Man" aka "Three Coffins", a celebrated novel by the master of the "locked room" mystery, John Dickson Carr. I've read one other Carr novel that I remember being clever, but not much else.

It's interesting to feel the difference in style and tone between Christie and Carr, who were writing in the same genre at the same time and surely read each other. Carr is much more dramatic, theatrical, exciting, much more interested in suspense, peaks and valleys, spectacle, things like that. But as a result, it's sometimes hard to understand what's happening. Like, you will be told that a character spoke, but you won't be told what they said, and instead it will explore the reactions and implications, and then maybe go somewhere else completely, before returning in a later chapter to reveal what was actually said. But that whole time, you're wondering, wait, did I miss something? Was I supposed to understand this?

Christie, on the other hand, has this absolutely transparent prose. It's a marvel. There's nothing extra, nothing confusing, you never lose track of her for a second. It's perfectly clear. You understand everything that's happening in the story exactly when she wants you to, and you're never worried that you didn't understand anything.

Which makes the reveals at the end so satisfying. Like a magician wearing a short sleeved shirt, doing everything very slowly, right in front of your eyes.

It's also SO cozy. If you don't read murder mysteries, the idea of the "Cozy Murder Mystery" might sound like an oxymoron, and obviously like, actual murder is not cozy or fun or anything like it. But Christie's world is so calm and pleasant, and so nostalgic for me. 

This is aided by the fact her murders are also unnaturally bloodless. I just read one where someone took the knife out of the victims neck and was touching the point to see how sharp it is, with no mention of the fact that, were someone actually stabbed in the neck, the knife would be covered in blood. It's a weirdly dissociated version of violence, where the actual violent act is completely abstracted, completely symbolified.

Juries still out on the Carr book. I'll finish it, but my guess is I'll be going right back to Christie afterwards.

I came here to say something else, only tangentially related to all this, but that's enough for today. I'll have to say it another day.

P.S. In the vein of the cozy mystery, but also in the vein of short daily puzzle: I recommend Clues By Sam. It's a very high quality daily logic puzzle that seems to be actually improving my working memory.

https://cluesbysam.com/

Let me know if you try it, or if you're already playing it.

P.P.S. The difficulty ramps through the week, peaking on the weekend and resetting on Monday, so if it's too hard for you today, try again on Monday.

On intimacy and sex in movies and TV. I was watching a movie a few weeks ago, and after a reunion thing between a man and a woman happened, there was this implied sense of knowing each other, of real connection, and then they immediately jumped into bed.  Something about this seemed totally off, and it occurred to me that sex in TV and movies is often used as a substitute for 'real' intimacy, that bc intimacy is so hard to do in real life, and likely harder in film, it's easier to just represent it with sex.

I suspect this has had a knock-on affect in that in consuming such representation, people have learned that the thing you do when you want to feel really connected/intimate with someone, is sleep with them.  Ofc, this isn't the height of intimacy, but a pale reflection of what is possible, and it's ability to create a sense of connection varies wildly.

I think Lalo, from Better Call Saul, is the only deeply embodied villain I've ever seen portrayed on television. He's embodied in both the sense that he has strong physical energy in every scene, and also importantly the way the character seems to navigate the world through intelligent, but 'non-conscious' actions. He's like, a Taoist hero.

It sharply contrasts him with the other villain, Gus, who is a cerebral planner thinking everything through. This difference goes hand in hand with their conflict. I thought both actors portrayed their roles and their mindsets magnificently; here's a great analysis of the subtle ways that Tony Dalton brought that to the role https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddXnhoQ1I-4&ab_channel=JustanObservation

#quicktakes

Erotic energy is often not about sex.
I think it is mostly an impulse to create something together. I don’t have a good model for the causal mechanism of how it works, but I think that attraction essentially hints at a specific potential between the two parties. Sex and “baby” is the creation-potential only a tiny fraction of the time.

Here are some of the many alternative creation-potentials, in no particular order. Would love to hear what else y’all notice, as this is not an attempt at an exhaustive list:

• A project for you to create together

  • as small as a party and as big as an organization

• An emotional gift one of you has for the other

  • eg: a piece of advice, sharing of life experience, an introduction to someone important

  • Similarly, information share—eg: a mutual friend needs to be taken care of 

• A quality or characteristic for you to integrate/embody more: The classic projection of a “golden shadow”

  •  Eg: “She’s so strong” because I’m not claiming my strength, or “he’s so smart” because I’m not comfortable admitting my own intelligence 

• A psychodynamic transformation (aka "healing")

  • Eg: you projecting your mom/dad stuff onto each other can be seen as a beautiful chance to make it conscious so you can be more present and available in all your relationships

• A different kind of relationship: Ongoing friendship, mentorship, employment, or some other awesome/potent relationship

• A chance to see what you’re avoiding in other relationships. This is the classic where someone cheats rather than deal with stuff at home.

---

You meet someone new and feel that sudden frisson of erotic excitement. That’s a crush—must be romantic love, right? We’ve watched it happen so many times in ourselves, our community, our movies and books, that it’s almost taken for granted. But I think as soon as I point out the alternatives, they seem obvious too. I wonder if there are other media and cultural narratives to help support more awareness of the alternative? I feel like this would help people be more open to different kinds of love, different kinds of relationships, and suffer a lot less. I feel like this awareness has done so for me, at least.

Hat Tip to Ken Wilber, where I first heard of using the word “eros” as the creative impulse of the universe driving to more novelty.

Timeline of Events in Brian Thompson Assassination. On December 4, 2024, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was assassinated outside the New York Hilton Midtown. The suspect, later identified as Luigi Mangione, 26, shot Thompson multiple times before fleeing on an e-bike. Thompson was pronounced dead shortly after. Mangione, who stayed in NYC for 10 days prior, was arrested on December 9 in Pennsylvania and charged with second-degree murder. The attack is believed to be a symbolic act targeting the healthcare industry.

November 24, 2024

• 10:11 p.m.: Suspect arrives in New York City on a Greyhound bus from Atlanta, Georgia.

November 24 – December 3, 2024

• Suspect checks into the HI New York City Hostel on the Upper West Side using a falsified New Jersey ID and pays in cash.
• He stays at the hostel for ten days, checking out on December 3.

December 4, 2024

• 5:30 a.m.: Suspect leaves the hostel, likely by bike.
• 6:15 a.m.: Suspect exits the 57th Street F Train subway station.
• 6:17 a.m.: Suspect purchases coffee, water, and granola bars at a Starbucks near the New York Hilton Midtown hotel.
• 6:30 a.m.: Surveillance footage captures the suspect walking while talking on the phone.
• 6:39 a.m.: Suspect arrives in front of the New York Hilton Midtown hotel and waits.
• 6:44 a.m.: Brian Thompson leaves his hotel. The assailant shoots him multiple times, then flees northbound via a pedestrian walkway.
• 6:46 a.m.: Police respond to a 911 call reporting the shooting.
• 6:48 a.m.: Officers find Thompson with multiple gunshot wounds. He is taken to Mount Sinai West hospital. The assailant is seen riding an e-bike into Central Park.
• 6:59 a.m.: Suspect is seen riding a bike on West 85th Street.
• 7:04 a.m.: Suspect enters a northbound taxi at 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue.
• 7:12 a.m.: Thompson is pronounced dead at Mount Sinai West hospital.

December 9, 2024

• Morning: Luigi Mangione, 26, is arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in connection with the assassination.
• Afternoon: Mangione is charged with second-degree murder and other related offenses.

December 11, 2024

• Mangione appears in court, contests extradition to New York, and is held without bail pending a governor’s warrant.

Can someone actually have any Teal if they score 0% Orange, Amber, Red, and Magenta? Going through the scores of the Better Political Conversations quiz is fascinating. (reference: https://www.guidedtrack.com/programs/we0q1pq/run)

Now, this very well could have been someone running an experiment to test the scoring, or to try to get a sense of a friend or family member, but they did give a name where a lot of people leave that blank.

Their scores are:
Teal 55%
Green 45%
Orange 0%
Amber 0%
Red 0%
Magenta 0%

Is it at all possible that someone could select every single response at Orange, Amber, Red, and Magenta as False, wrong, or just doesn’t make sense and have any actual Teal?

Also interesting, I got an email from someone who thinks of himself as primarily Orange, but was surprised that his quiz results came out 0% Orange. He referenced his Meyers-Briggs results as a reference in support. Utterly fascinated, I’ve asked him to let me know what correlation he sees between the Integral levels and Meyers-Briggs, and I’ve asked him what statements at Orange would have had his quiz results come out accurate for him.

Each time I make a significant edit in the content of the project I make a note of the change in the google sheet where I’m keeping track of scores. Here are the averages of the currently 75 scores:

Amber 26%
Green 25%
Teal 21%
Red 12%
Orange 11%
Magenta 5%

One blatant pattern I’m seeing is that high Green scores ALWAYS pair with a high score in Amber, and that people who have that pairing always score exceedingly low in Red and quite low in Orange.

Can someone actually have any Teal if they score 0% Orange, Amber, Red, and Magenta? Going through the scores of the Better Political Conversations quiz is fascinating. (reference: https://www.guidedtrack.com/programs/we0q1pq/run)

Now, this very well could have been someone running an experiment to test the scoring, or to try to get a sense of a friend or family member, but they did give a name where a lot of people leave that blank.

Their scores are:
Teal 55%
Green 45%
Orange 0%
Amber 0%
Red 0%
Magenta 0%

Is it at all possible that someone could select every single response at Orange, Amber, Red, and Magenta as False, wrong, or just doesn’t make sense and have any actual Teal?

Also interesting, I got an email from someone who thinks of himself as primarily Orange, but was surprised that his quiz results came out 0% Orange. He referenced his Meyers-Briggs results as a reference in support. Utterly fascinated, I’ve asked him to let me know what correlation he sees between the Integral levels and Meyers-Briggs, and I’ve asked him what statements at Orange would have had his quiz results come out accurate for him.

Each time I make a significant edit in the content of the project I make a note of the change in the google sheet where I’m keeping track of scores. Here are the averages of the currently 75 scores:

Amber 26%
Green 25%
Teal 21%
Red 12%
Orange 11%
Magenta 5%

One blatant pattern I’m seeing is that high Green scores ALWAYS pair with a high score in Amber, and that people who have that pairing always score exceedingly low in Red and quite low in Orange.

It's too intimidating for men to be men. Alright, here’s one of my most controversial opinions, and I’m gonna try to take the filter off as much as possible:

Feminism has played out as retribution instead of solution. The Barbie movie is an entirely thorough example of what I’m talking about. You suppressed us, so we’re gonna use any means necessary to take over. And then they recreated the same imbalance in its opposite.

I see most social movements do this too. True solutions to imbalances aren’t fair because they don’t have human-enacted payback. You suppressed us, so we’re going to move toward balance.

I’ve been spending about 2 years trying to set aside my learned default into my masculine energy (having grown up in highly feminist orange/green) and learn how to root in my feminine. But my feminine longs for a tether to something rooted. Masculine energy feels rooted, solid, grounded, and my feminine very much doesn’t (though it is held by a spacious ok-ness, but it’s so airy it easily gets chaotic when not balanced in connection with a grounded masculine.)

But I’ve had a hell of a time finding grounded healthy masculine men. Many of them can do it for a time, but then flee to an extreme, like angry resentment at one end and non-binary softness at the other end. And I think it’s because the culture has become super aggressive to men who are solidly men.

We need new gender categories, while preserving the distinctness of "man" and "woman". I don’t mind using different pronouns—I’m happy to love someone with whatever language they prefer.

But I’d like to propose that deconstructing traditional genders is not only unnecessary, it’s harmful.

Not necessary

• It’s not necessary because we’re free to create as many new genders as we’d like, while preserving the standard ones.

• This is the transcend and include approach, as far as I can tell. The current approaches I’ve seen are either all transcend (reject the historical categories) or all include (reject the creativity and proof-by-existence of new genders).

• I believe this will better honor the person who was misassigned a gender at birth, because their life experience is very different from someone who was assigned the gender they identify with. Eg: if I’m a trans-woman, I didn’t grow up with all the social pressures of being a woman, or going through a menstrual cycle, or whatever; I grew up feeling like a woman but getting the social pressures of being a man, going through the hormonal changes associated with male-body-ness. Which is a totally unique experience, that I will find more belonging and support from other people like me, not from trad-females.

Harmful

• It’s harmful because the people who want acceptance into the traditional category are never going to get it. Eg: If i’m a trans-woman, I was assigned male at birth, and I probably have some male parts and hormones and stuff, so when I try to identify as a woman and join in those discussions and groups that are for women I’m likely to always feel outside, different, and to a certain group of cis-women, threatening.

• This further divides society and polarizes certain populations against including the reality of the trans-experience, which then polarizes the trans-supporters, which begets the vicious cycle.

• Sex differentiation started around 1.2 billion years, so the male-female experience has ancient roots that are in our bodies and impacting us every single second. Denying this altogether is destroying massive chesterotn fences— denies tons of wisdom that is passed down not only culturally over the past 200,000 years, but instinctually for a billion.

What about bathrooms and sports?

Instead we can just have single stall bathrooms and locker-rooms. Or trad-male, trad-female, and a third for whoever of whatever gender, which is much larger than the trad lockerrooms and bathrooms. We can have a third category of sports—all gender. We’re creative, we’re growing, we have plenty of people to populate them and who will want to win, why stick with a binary?

I’m sure I’m missing something, and I apologize to the new-gendered people who I’m sure I’ve insulted or missed somehow. But, leaning in to potentially contentious convo…