Cross cultural understanding through film

 One of my friends recently watched the new Godzilla vs Kong movie and was totally confused. Which was a shame. My family absolutely was thrilled by this movie. We were hooting and hollering and just - beyond happy watching it.  So what accounts for the different experiences? A lot of it has to do with the knowledge base you bring to a movie and the cross cultural differences that occur in the franchise. 

Godzilla and Kong movies have been an ongoing dialogue between east and west since their inception. This doesn't just happen with these films, but - Japanese godzilla is so much different from USA godzilla movies and same with Kong. Filmmakers from USA and Japan literally make these movies in response to the other country's movies. In the original Japanese Godzilla vs Kong movie which came after the USA kong films, Kong is an enemy of humanity that Godzilla saves Japan from. In USA movies, Godzilla tends to be the enemy that Kong saves us from. In this one - they finally reconcile. We expected this - as a USA movie - to have Kong as the protagonist - which it basically did, but then it shifted about 1/3 of the way through and became WAY more Japanese in it's story telling style and point. That may be why it was confusing. This was a USA movie, that attempted to reconcile the conflict between the USA and Japanese films. But Japan has moved so far past thing with Shin Godzilla. But it was still lovely to see!

The movie was coherent but only to people who understood it. It's probably not that you weren't paying attention. It's more that you may not have understood the story telling short cuts and references that were made and not knowing the context of the history of these films as a dialogue between USA and Japan. Also, the first third of the movie was frustrating. The story was told in a Japanese format (ie: dichotomy into synthesis - which USA audiences find - difficult to follow as that is absolutely NOT how we tell stories). So - cultural story telling differences were present. Finally, it was over the top ridiculous which required a LOT of suspending of disbelief to just - allow the movie to be what it was and not what you wanted or were expecting it to be. Like I said, once we stopped fighting it and just allowed ourselves to accept the premise and the fact this movie was a mashup, the movie became not just enjoyable but insanely so and surprisingly deep for us. I haven't felt that joyous and satisfied coming out of a movie since Wonder Woman.

I liken this to people watching bollywood movies and being super confused about the dance sequences. If you don't know what other movies the film makers are referencing and why - it's not that you aren't paying attention, it's that what they are saying is being spoken in a language you don't understand and in a format that doesn't make sense. The dance sequences in bollywood are hugely important and are basically story telling shortcuts that tell us a lot about character motivation while paying homage to other movies and movie makers. It's a dialogue with the past into the present. Those dance sequences are often doing 5 things at once for the film maker and the audience. To people who know and understand the references, it makes a lot of sense and bring a lot of joy. But if you a) haven't encountered this form of story telling before and b) don't know the references to know what other movies are being invoked and more importantly WHY - all you see is a bizarre dance sequence that makes no sense at all to you.

In Flatland, you are the square

True knowledge is understanding that YOU are the square in Flatland.  And that the Sphere was ALSO, the square.

If you have not read this book, you absolutely should. It's a short fable designed to help us expand our thinking and be humble at the same time. https://amzn.to/3soTKmS

The book came up in a discussion between Julia Galef and Jonathon Haidt during the Rationally Speaking podcast. http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/episode-252-understanding-moral-disagreements-jonathan-haidt.html

Transcript here: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/468275/28405589/1613677458480/rs252transcript.pdf

The conversation was actually about understanding different people's moral framework. Haidt talks about our moral sense and uses the metaphor of taste buds. There are basic flavors we can all taste and all tastes are actually a combination of those core tastes. 

He argues it is the same with morality. There are core evolutionary responses we have and all our moral depths and dimensions is actually the blending of these cores. It is why we can feel happy and sad at the same time.  The movie Inside Out does a great job of explaining this. 

Anyhoo, back to Flatland. For those who have not read it, it's about a 2 dimensional square that encounters a 3 dimensional sphere. The 2 dimensional square cannot comprehend the sphere as he has no ability to experience 3 dimensions. The book is about the square learning about 3 dimensions and coming to terms with learning about what he didn't know before. (and yes, the square is gendered male - hence the pronoun use).

The square begins to understand that a 1 dimensional behind can't experience him as 2 dimensions either because all it will experience a square as it passes through a line is as a point.  The square experiences the sphere as a circle that changes sizes as it passes through the 2 d plane.  And yes, this book is mathematically geeky.

We are the square. We all don't know what we don't know and how we experience others is our impression of them on us, not the reality of them. 

Where the true knowledge comes in is when the square starts asking the sphere about 4 d space and 5 d space. And the sphere refuses to consider it. The sphere experiences and has knowledge of 3 dimensions. It cannot comprehend a fourth. 

But the square, now that is knows about the 3rd dimension and accepts it as reality, can now imagine a 4th and 5th to the nth degree.

Thus, the sphere, becomes like the square when we first encounter him. 

We are all simultaneously aware and unaware. Knowing this allows us to be humble, and open to learn. 

Arrogant Atheists

I realize this is a blog about Humanism, and Atheism isn’t part of my normal repertoire. But trust me, there is a point to all this. This post is actually written for people of faith trying to make sense of the apparent arrogance of “new” atheists, meaning people who have only recently come to their atheism as opposed to old hands like me. What you need to know is that most of them aren’t trying to be arrogant. What they are trying to be, believe it or not, is helpful.

I think we can all agree that the closer your understanding of how the universe works is to how it actually works the easier the time you will have navigating your way through it. What is happening with the “new” atheists is that they have recently experienced a dramatic change in how they think the universe works and this change in understanding has made their lives not just easier, but A LOT easier. And when you experience something that is not only that dramatic, but that is also incredibly effective at improving your life in general, well, it’s REALLY hard to keep that new knowledge to yourself.

One of the powerful new techniques that “new” Atheists learned on their journey was the discipline of Freethought. Humanists also practice Freethought and regardless of belief or unbelief, there is no reason you shouldn’t as well. I have an entire chapter dedicated to this topic in my book. Here’s part of the concluding paragraph of that chapter:

“A word of warning: once you begin to practice Freethought, you will wonder how you ever made reasonable decisions before. …This newfound knowledge of the tangible benefits of Freethought will probably make you less patient with those who do not practice the technique. Just remember, a little compassion goes a long way."

Conclusion: Most “new” atheists aren’t being arrogant; they are just being a bit inarticulate in their excitement. Be patient with them.