Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Philosopher Daniel Dennett On Religion, Gould and UFOs at Monsters & Critics
Philosopher Daniel Dennett, author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Freedom Evolves, and most recently, Breaking the Spell, is interviewed by Dan Schneider over at Monsters & Critics. Wading through the overwrought, pretentious and often confused questions, there are some Dennettian gems to be mined from it. (In journalism, few things are more annoying than interviewers who think that they are more interesting than the people whose views they are allegedly soliciting.) I boil down a couple of the questions to their essentials and leave Dennett's answers in full.
On religion:
Q. I have to admit that the really religious-despite whatever blinders they wear, were FAR happier and focus on their lives than the anomic suburbanites or career-oriented MBAs:
DD: There is no doubt that many religions make many people happier than they otherwise would be. The same is true, as you say, of opium. Probably—I wonder if this research has been done—being an impassioned major league baseball team fan has similarly bracing effects. I find that scientists and philosophers seem to be happier than bankers and stockbrokers, by and large, but that's just anecdotal. I haven't done any careful studies. Several studies show that paraplegics are, in general, more satisfied and happy with their lives than people not confined to wheel chairs! This fascinating—and heartening—fact shows that some of our 'obvious' convictions about quality of life are just wrong. But I'm not going to start toasting to the future of my friends' children by wishing that they become paraplegics.
Q. I claim that, by that definition, all organized religion is fundamentally psychotic. Do you agree?
DD: There is definitely a similarity, but more interesting are the differences: most deeply religious people can be entirely effective and clearheaded agents on behalf of their curious beliefs. Nothing disorganized about their behavior.
On Dennett's falling out with Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould.
A. Your views on the late Stephen Jay Gould.
DD: I see Gould quite differently. He was an academic bully, who exploited his scientific credentials to push his political views—or maybe they were closer to religious views. (Remember: I started out as a friend of his; I often attended his seminars at Harvard but eventually I got so annoyed with the way he would misrepresent his critics and bully the students that I had to leave.) When I wrote DDI, I knew I was going to have to expose Gould's history of misrepresentation—since he was going to hate my book, and would pillory it with his usual tricks if I didn't attempt to preempt that vilification effort with an analysis of his own work. Gould had been selling America a watered-down and distorted version of basic evolutionary theory for decades, and when I pointed this out, he reacted--not unreasonably!-- with a venomous attack on what he called my "Darwinian fundamentalism," but, you know, the evolutionary biology community knew I was right, and said so. (I am not alone in incurring Gould's wrath: I'm proud to stand with Richard Dawkins, the late, great John Maynard Smith and Steve Pinker, as sane and forthright a team of "fundamentalists" as one could ask for.) Gould could never accept that natural selection is fundamentally a sorting algorithm, and kept hunting for some softening of that fact—limiting the role of natural selection itself, or elevating 'constraints' that would subdue it. He never found any worth keeping, but he tried hard. Punctuated equilibrium, the Cambrian explosion, and exaptation all turn out to be interesting wrinkles in orthodox ("ultra") neo-Darwinian theory, not challenges to it. And today we still have to face creationists (such as Senator Brownback) who think that Gould's punctuated equilibrium shows that the theory of evolution is not established. That's part of Gould's legacy, sad to say. He didn't actively discourage the idea that he'd found a major flaw in the theory of evolution by natural selection. I don't know whether a protracted debate between me and Gould on television would have worked in any case. He was not above pulling rank, and was a master of insinuation. Certainly in our infrequent public confrontations after my book came out, he did not behave in a principled manner.
On UFOs:
Q. Why are people who claim to be alien abductees looked upon askance while those who see the Virgin Mary [are] not?
DD: There are good reasons to believe that many who claim to be alien abductees have actually had a traumatic sexual experience at the hands of some abusing member of the family, or other sexual abuser. For them this is just the socially easiest way of "explaining" their traumatic memories, and their PTSD symptoms, and they may be entirely sincere in their hallucinated memories. (So John Mack was probably half right: these people had indeed had a terrible experience; it just wasn't with aliens.) The phenomenon should be studied with a suitably rigorous methodology (not the way Whitley Strieber "investigated" it). But that's tough, since ethical and legal problems arise immediately. That's no accident. It's an instance of Nicholas Humphrey's Argument from Unwarranted Design (in his excellent book LEAPS OF FAITH). Now why should it be that the juiciest and most contagious tales of horror and wonder always seem to involve circumstances that are systematically difficult to investigate? These myths spread because they can spread, just like the virus for the common cold.
reason's interview of Dennett in which he discussed the idea of humans as "choice machines" in his book Freedom Evolves here. Also see my review of that book here.
Finally, the whole M&C interview here.
|7.11.07 @ 12:22PM|#
I saw Ron quoted on the back of Heyak's book "the Fatal Conceit"
last night.
I sure hope Ron actually read the book and understands that Heyak's
take on religion is very different and far less spiteful then
Dennett's.
Russell|7.11.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Steve Gould desreves a little more credit for candor- far from
concealing his agenda--his cliche' response to undergraduate
questions raising the possibility that he might have one was
:
"My daddy raised me to be a Marxist"
I otherwise applaud Dennett:
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/07/the-sum-of-all-.html
|7.11.07 @ 12:31PM|#
Oh yeah and reading Dennet's book, the first six chapters so far
anyway, consciousness explained my biggest impression so far is
that Dennet spent like 2 pages explaining why the Laffer curve was
wrong in clear understandable language yet could not for six
chapters actually put up a simple model of what how he actually
thought consciousness works.
By the way is refutation of Laffer's Curve is dead wrong.
Anyway i find it funny that he says this about
Gould.
He was an academic bully, who exploited his scientific
credentials to push his political views-or maybe they were closer
to religious views.
What a fucking hypocrite.
|7.11.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Dennett is a smart guy who makes some very cogent points about
how we think and experience the world. He is also an insufferable
smug jackass. During the linked to interview with Balko he
states
"I've disenchanted it, but I haven't made it meaningless. Meaning
doesn't depend on magic."
No meaning depends on permanence. If everything we know is destined
to disappear in the fireball that is our dying sun and we are only
destined to be here for a millisecond of the universe, then our
world and our concerns about it are pretty meaningless. Religions,
at heart, don't talk about magic, they talk about eternity. If
things are not eternal then they are pretty meaningless. The Greeks
understood that, all the major religions understand that, Nietzsche
understood that. I suppose an individual photon that hits my
computer screen and lives a life of nanoseconds, if it had the
capability, could find a way to consider its life "meaningful" but
I doubt many of us would be convinced. Hey whatever gets you
through the night Daniel.
|7.11.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Why are people who claim to be alien abductees looked upon
askance while those who see the Virgin Mary [are] not?
In their own lifetimes, peope who claim to see the Virgin are often
looked upon askance, even by the church. the ones who eventually
become saints or beatified usually had to patiently endure a lot of
grief first.
|7.11.07 @ 12:43PM|#
John: I won't comment on Dennett's smugness, but immodesty forces me to note that the linked interview was done by me, not my esteemed colleague Radley.
|7.11.07 @ 12:48PM|#
I know it was done by Balko Ron. What bugs me about Dennett is statements like "their curious beliefs" when describing religious people. Could there me a more smug and condescending way to describe people? The comparing of religious people to happy paraplegics is another example of this. The undertone of everything Dennett says is that he has figured everything out and only fools and buffoons could ever disagree with him. I can't stand people who won't take other views seriously and Dennett seems to be one of those people.
|7.11.07 @ 12:53PM|#
I have to agree with John here. I read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," as well as most of Richard Dawkin's popular works and "The Blank Slate." None of those books address something Gould understood, that natural selection really does work beautifully as justification for our worst human tendencies. There's really no room in Darwinism for social justice, or at least I can't find one. (And Peter Singer's "Darwinian Left" didn't help, either.) That doesn't mean natural selection is wrong, only that I wouldn't want to live a human society that was explicitly based on those ideas. (Granted, btw, that I live in a society made up of humans that are products of natural selection. I know enough about my fellow humans, however, not to trust them to draft laws based on natural selection.)
|7.11.07 @ 12:56PM|#
The Balko interview ends with
"So morality evolves largely because people get more benefits than
not out of it.
Dennett: Yes. Civilization is a good deal."
What is that if not just crude utilitarianism? If people overall
become a better species and have a better civilization by killing
off non-hackers like the crippled or the insane, I really can't see
how Dennett could object much less not endorse the idea. What a
good deal!!
|7.11.07 @ 1:07PM|#
John,
I think you could argue that a civilization that lacks empathy is,
by definition, not a better civilization.
|7.11.07 @ 1:09PM|#
What is that if not just crude utilitarianism? If people
overall become a better species and have a better civilization by
killing off non-hackers like the crippled or the insane, I really
can't see how Dennett could object much less not endorse the idea.
What a good deal!!
Empathy and morality work in mysterious ways...
And who says the crippled and insane are non-hackers?
Hell even an evil utilitarian like Dennett would concede that our
understanding of the human brain has been tremendously enhanced by
the crippled and the insane.
Plus you know...they can pick up the garbage at parking lots.
|7.11.07 @ 1:11PM|#
There's really no room in Darwinism for social justice, or
at least I can't find one.
Thats good...not only is social justice morally bankrupt but
totally useless in a morally vacant world...sounds about right.
|7.11.07 @ 1:23PM|#
John & Karen: In addition to my interview with
Dennett, you may also be interested in my interview with left-wing,
animal rights philosopher Peter Singer in which we discussed his
fascinating little book, A Darwinian
Left.
A bit here:
Reason: What limits does Darwinian thinking put on the left's core
goal of fostering egalitarianism?
Singer: I think understanding Darwinian thinking makes us realize
that humans are not by nature egalitarian. To the contrary and by
nature, they form hierarchies and rankings and try to move up those
hierarchies. That doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't work
toward a more egalitarian society, but it does mean that you should
be aware that you won't be able to do so simply by removing
artificial contrivances that maintain inequality. You'll have to do
more than that. You'll have to do something positive in order to
promote or maintain equality, and there will be costs in doing
that. The question the left then has to ask is, What costs are
worth paying and what costs aren't worth paying? ...
Reason: What does Darwinian thinking tell the left about why so
many of the social programs they have favored have had difficulties
or have failed?
Singer: It tells the left that some of them have failed because
their goals were really unrealistic. For example, if their goals
were to achieve equality and to combine that with a high degree of
liberty-to have the state withering away, as Marx said-it's very
difficult to see how you're going to be able to achieve that. If
you let the state wither away, then humans' natural tendencies to
form hierarchies and rank and so on are going to assert themselves.
What happened specifically with the form of communism that was
attempted in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was that people
went into it with some vague idea that they could have this sort of
society. But they kept needing to strengthen the power of the state
rather than allow it to wither away. In that sense, the original
idea would just collapse. You simply couldn't achieve it. Human
beings are not such that you could expect them to work for the
common good in the way that the theory assumed. The failure to
understand that human nature is not as plastic as socialists often
assume is a substantial part of why some of these schemes have
failed.
|7.11.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Too bad Steve Gould can no longer fight back.
DD should discuss the difference between genuine, but falsified,
scientific theories and those ad-hoc monsters manufactured out of
ideological prejudice. Having read most of Gould, I can not recall
his opining or even suggesting that he and Eldridge had created an
alternative to the standard theory that would supplant natural
selection, for example.
In the face of philosophy (of the empirico-logicico-linguistic
sort) what can one say, except echo with Descartes that
"philosophers raise a dust and then complain that they can not
see."
Ah well, we can rest content that there are no living philosophers;
in anglophone lands there are only ELLosophists. It's a good
background for Law.
Where else will a Ph.D. in philosophy have taken one in the last 40
years? DD and his ilk live off of the false hope of grad students
and junior faculty -- most departments of philosophy should be
closed, and all remaining should be cut back.
On the question of values. Sure, don't look for them in scientific
theories. Look for them in scientific practice, methodology. Every
putative contribution to knowledge asserts that what it contains is
true. You'll find that 'is true' is a predicate belonging to a
metalanguage which operates on scientific statements as well as
statements in areas like Law and, surprise!, ordinary discourse.
And, why truth rather than falsehood? Especially, when falsehood is
often more comforting . . . perhaps even more adaptive for advanced
Apes.
You could read Nietzsche, DD. Or, if you desire more sober prose,
try Science and Human Values by J. Bronowski.
www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Values-Jacob-Bronowski/dp/0060972815
eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007
|7.11.07 @ 1:40PM|#
The failure to understand that human nature is not as
plastic as socialists often assume is a substantial part of why
some of these schemes have failed.
Bleh what bullshit...socialism is the antithesis of diversity and
experimentation. That is why it fails.
Jim Lippard|7.11.07 @ 1:45PM|#
"No meaning depends on permanence. If everything we know is
destined to disappear in the fireball that is our dying sun and we
are only destined to be here for a millisecond of the universe,
then our world and our concerns about it are pretty
meaningless."
I agree with your first sentence, but not with your second. Meaning
does not depend on permanence. The Epicureans had it right--we
don't lament our nonexistence during the time before we were born,
and we shouldn't lament that our looming nonexistence after our
deaths, for death is not a harm to the entity that no longer
exists. Our future nonexistence makes our present existence more
valuable and precious, not less.
|7.11.07 @ 2:12PM|#
Jim,
If nothing is perminant what difference does it make how it turns
out? Without perminance and consquences to our actions, why not
just do whatever feels good? It is the Marquise De Sade problem.
What if I like hurting people? It makes me happy. Yeah, it sucks
for them, but who is to say that I shouldn't be able to do it if
that is in fact what makes me happy? I suppose there is some vague
idea of doing unto others but who cares, we all will be in the same
state of blissful non-existance when we die, why not get my kicks
while I can? I suppose you could come up with some Kantian
catagorical imperitive that says I shouldn't do what I don't want
everyone else to do, but what if I am in charge and no one will
hurt me?
"Hell even an evil utilitarian like Dennett would concede that our
understanding of the human brain has been tremendously enhanced by
the crippled and the insane."
What happens after we no longer get any information from them and
their presense no longer furthers the advancement of the species?
In the end, I don't see how people in Dinnet's worldview are
anything more than a means to the end of advancing the species and
the civilization.
|7.11.07 @ 2:14PM|#
"I think you could argue that a civilization that lacks empathy
is, by definition, not a better civilization."
You and I think so, but why is that so obvious? Wouldn't a
civilization that didn't have any crippled or insane and eliminated
all unhappyness and advanced the evolution of the species be
superior to our messy but empathetic one? If natural selection and
advancement of the species is the end goal, then don't we all have
a duty to further it even if that means dying so that we don't
further pollute the gene pool with our inferior genes?
|7.11.07 @ 2:18PM|#
John
If I understand you correctly, then I think the issue of permanance
is really one of imperfect information...we can reasonably argue
what impact the idea of permanance has if we beleive it does or
does not exist...but what of the reality that we do not
know...
the problem for us all then is that we have imperfect information
about the permanance of our lives...our naturally selected
tendencies toward 'living the life you have' (and all the pleasure
of today) may be moderated by hedging for the life we beleive 'we
may yet get'...some may call this 'hope'.
|7.11.07 @ 2:19PM|#
"And, why truth rather than falsehood? Especially, when
falsehood is often more comforting . . . perhaps even more adaptive
for advanced Apes."
Exactly!! If you don't beleive in anything infinite or eternal,
then why not just believe in whatever gets you through the night?
People like Dennett are nihlists who don't have the courage to face
the abysss.
|7.11.07 @ 2:21PM|#
the problem for us all then is that we have imperfect
information about the permanance of our lives...our naturally
selected tendencies toward 'living the life you have' (and all the
pleasure of today) may be moderated by hedging for the life we
beleive 'we may yet get'...some may call this 'hope'."
I can't argue with you there. To me Dennett is just claiming to
have solved the problem of existential anxiety through the miracle
of modern science. Sorry but I am not buying it.
dhex|7.11.07 @ 2:44PM|#
would it be possible for the interviewer to be more of a
douchebag?
pretty please?
|7.11.07 @ 4:18PM|#
My god, that's a terrible interview. Paragraph after paragraph,
it's pseudointellectual babble from the interviewer to which
Dennett responds:
I have nothing to say about this.
It's absolute trash. What interviewer of even minimal competence
thinks that he or she is the primary source of the audience's
interest? And the profound arrogance of it all - the writer seems
to fancy him or herself as an "artist" with a mind on par with
Dennett's, constantly saying "wise" things and hoping that Dennett
will pat him or her on the back. Utter and complete trash.
Dan Schneider|7.11.07 @ 4:39PM|#
Yes, in depth queries tax the mind too much.
Better to ask gems like 'Your new book is called Freedom Evolves.
Why?' or 'Where do our values come from in the first place?'
If Reason were being honest, you'd title the piece a paid ad for
the book he was pushing at the time. The only thing missing was
Dennett stating what page of his book he was quoting from.
Infomercials are not interviews, but perhaps you got a free copy of
the book. Yippee!
|7.11.07 @ 4:57PM|#
"Dennett are nihlists who don't have the courage to face the
abysss."
Or is it that people who believe in an afterlife don't have the
courage to face death?
Dan Schneider|7.11.07 @ 5:22PM|#
Re: the Gould digression.
That is exactly what an interview, if it strives to be good, is
about.
Imagine the venom still held about a man 5 years dead. That says
something about DD and the egos of scientists in general, re:
pissing matches.
No other interview, in print or video, with DD gets that, and
there's many more moments like that.
Also, for a man devoted to ideas, to answer so many with flippant
non sequiturs, says more than any lengthy BS answer could. That's
why they were left in.
Compare the DD interview to the prior interview with novelist
Charles Johnson. The q's side in each interview ran about 9k words.
CJ's replies ran about 13.5k. DD's a little over 6k, even though
his q's covered a greater range than CJ's q's.
The point is it cores into the two men to contrast their answers.
CJ comes off as engaged and appreciative of thoughtful in depth
questions that force him to think, and even states such in the
interview. DD comes off as a grumpy old man who wants to give
canned answers, as in your infomercial-cum-interview. The fact that
he had no book to push also played a part in his answers.
Commerce may prefer Reason's interview, but real reason prefers
mine. It's the better interview, by a long shot.
|7.11.07 @ 5:49PM|#
Commerce may prefer Reason's interview, but real reason prefers mine. It's the better interview, by a long shot.
Careful patting yourself on the back, there. Wouldn't want you to
strain your shoulder.
|7.11.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Commerce may prefer Reason's interview, but real reason
prefers mine. It's the better interview, by a long shot.
Did this guys just say that his "reason" is more authentic because
less people read his stuff?
|7.11.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Dan-
Why in the world did you think it was appropriate or relevant to
ask Dennett what his views on Genghis Kahn were?
You displayed your facile views when you dismissed Chomsky's
career, why continue the process on blog comment boards?
|7.11.07 @ 6:49PM|#
You displayed your facile views when you dismissed Chomsky's
career, why continue the process on blog comment boards?
His career as a talented linguist or as a left wing nut job?
|7.11.07 @ 7:01PM|#
Joshua-
The latter. While his star has faded, and the quality of his
political writings have eroded, his earlier writings were massively
influential and, if I may say so, on the right side of morality and
truth. I'm talking about Vietnam and Palestine.
Dan Schneider|7.11.07 @ 7:36PM|#
No shoulder straining, but in researching Dennett, and looking
at printed (paper and online) interviews, this Reason interview
(and others of the 10 questions we can ask as we pimp your current
book sort) was exactly what I wanted to avoid. Again, DD's answers
to your Q's are lifted straight from his book (sans page #s).
Any DD 'gems' come only from the proper mining techniques. That
would be from the q's asked.
Also, the Khan trope is a good one. I link to an online DD
roundtable discussing people of the millennium, where many
intellectual types discuss their choices. I posited mine. Now, I
could have asked about causality, but given the framing of that
interview, decided to show, not tell. M&C is a site more
interested in Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. The unfortunate fact
is that not only the readers, but many of the folk involved, would
be lost without such vivid examples.
To try to expand readers one has to lay things out more
vividly.
As for less people reading 'my stuff.' M&C gets 4.5 mill hits a
month. My personal site averages about 2 million. How many folk
read Reason online a month? The commerce I was referring to was the
infomercial as interview. My interview was for the long term, and
for folk not acquainted with DD- those who might want to find out
who he is, rather than Paris's stint in jail.
Bridging the gap between high and low culture, and diff
readerships, is difficult, but one must know one's medium. Online
is the perfect vehicle for long interviews and articles. There are
no paper costs.
As for Chomsky, I dismissed his Left Wing lunacy but acknowledged
his scientific creds. You don't seriously want to defend his
recrudescent Communist nonsense, do you? Thanks, Josh.
In short, I am going more for a Charlie Rose interview in print.
There are many people who loathe Rose's interview style because he
talks almost as much as the guests. But, he gets far more nuggets
PRECISELY because his style is eye to eye, not supplicant to
Master. And, because of the online medium, I can go longer than
Rose can.
I did think about trimming the answers to those q's that got a
'Huh?' response, but realized that a lack of intellectual curiosity
on subject A or B was just as revealing as a lengthy answer.
Do I think it was a great interview? No. Was it a good one. Yes.
And certainly the best of the many I read online, and by a long
shot.
Interviews are not to serve my (the interviewer's) desires, nor
even the interviewee's, but the reader's. They are not to merely
pimp a product, but to core to the essence of that
individual.
Warts and all, that's exactly what my interview does. Some folk
have loved it, others hated it. Some think Dennet comes off
pompous, some think I do, Some think both of us do. Others think
it's amongst the best they've ever read.
The length of this thread proves it's had an impact.
How many interviews on Reason can claim the same?
Jim Lippard|7.11.07 @ 7:42PM|#
"If nothing is perminant what difference does it make how it
turns out? Without perminance and consquences to our actions, why
not just do whatever feels good?"
Are you advocating a form of consequentialism that places all value
on some final state? Why do you deny all value to all moments
preceding the final state?
Impermanence doesn't mean there are no consequences--there are
plenty of consequences within our lifetimes, and they matter in and
of themselves, not in virtue of a hypothesized infinite immortal
future.
|7.11.07 @ 7:48PM|#
Dan,
I don't even know who what or where Paris Hilton is, so I guess I'm
smarter than you.
|7.11.07 @ 10:10PM|#
Others think it's amongst the best they've ever read.
For a High School newspaper, certainly. Gotta love this little
bit:
I've always felt that intelligence is the most human quality-
not love, which lower animals can feel
dhex|7.11.07 @ 11:38PM|#
"Yes, in depth queries tax the mind too much."
so this isn't an act?
zog help you, son.
zog help you.
Dan Schneider|7.12.07 @ 8:34AM|#
Rick:
The people who run M&C did not even know who CJ or DD were.
Their ideas of writers are Dan Brown and Sue Grafton, and of
course, JK Rowling.
Tacos: It's polite not to speak and fellate at the same time. When
you get out of HS, it'll be fun to see what you think.
Hex: send Zog Tacos' way.
dhex|7.12.07 @ 10:40AM|#
no, i believe you need it more.
but hey at least you're better than people who read us weekly.
that's something, right? that's definitely an accomplishment right
there. totally.
on a more serious note, you may wish to go back and review charlie
rose's program in further depth and contrast it with your own
approach to see why the comparison falls flat with some folk.
(hint: charlie rose is not in love with himself - and if he is, he
hides it well - nor does he spend a whole interview bagging on real
and imagined blogosphere foes.)
Dan Schneider|7.12.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Hex: Now that you've mastered the dialectic of a parakeet, try
for an emu. Hint: ssshhh....
As for Rose, I have watched, and read many of the Rose-haters out
there.
But, if you preferred stoop-kneed and slack-jawed commercials as
interviews, you're in the right place.
dhex|7.12.07 @ 11:24AM|#
yes that's exactly what i prefer. i enjoy all that is dumb in
life, unlike you who clearly is the superior oh who am i kidding
ATOMIC WEDGIE!!!
no really though you should actually watch some more rose cause i
think you were asleep the first time. you will notice at no time is
mr. rose beating it while staring into the mirror and mouthing the
words to "i only have eyes for you."
dhex|7.12.07 @ 11:28AM|#
on a serious note please fix this image on your site:
http://www.cosmoetica.com/Side_Chaplin.gif
the squishy chaplin effect is really fucking annoying. there are
better things to do with pirated copies of photoshop like not doing
that. just cut off his arms a bit. everyone will know who he is.
(unless you're one of those open source guys in which case i meant
gimp the whole time, no really please don't hurt me by replacing
every "s" with a $ thanks)
dhex|7.12.07 @ 12:03PM|#
no really: send me the .psd files and i'll fix it for you.
really. listen this is no fakey joke ha ha back and forth - i know
bad amateur photoshop is like "a thing" and all but for reals it
don't have to be. really.
like the whole "the image had squigglies everywhere so i ran one
filter on this picture and now it looks wacky hooray" thing.
http://www.cosmoetica.com/Top_Passenger_Jack.gif
this one is better but i can't help but feel it was scaled slightly
incorrectly. or perhaps the original image was somewhat
pinched.
http://www.cosmoetica.com/Saturn_Rings_Side_500.gif
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245