THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES
The extract from the ‘Mothman Prophecies’ by John Keel, highlights two important aspects of TOK – i) Reason and Belief; ii) Truth and Superstition.
A tall man, wearing black clothes on a rainy night, was perhaps an image created by the people of Virginia to describe how the devil looked. The people of Virginia ‘believed’ in the existence of the devil. It was perhaps a superstition in the country carried down from generations, but it was now considered to be the ‘truth’.
The couple had encountered a stranger who resembled their image of a devil - a tall man, wearing black clothes on a rainy night. The couple was so taken aback by what they saw, that they believed that it was the devil. To confirm their belief, they narrated the incident to their friends, who agreed that the couple had encountered the devil.
Few days later, when the couple died in a fatal accident, their friends said that the devil was responsible for their death. They reasoned themselves that if the couple hadn’t seen the devil, they would have still been safe.
Just as the people of Virginia had a belief, I too have mine, I believe that there’s no such thing as the Devil, and so that night the couple could not have encountered the ‘devil’. Their accident was a mere coincidence that had occurred a few days after meeting the stranger. The couple was destined to die that day and so they did die.
The existence of the devil has not been proved till today. Those who believe in it have chosen to do so, and vice versa. Thus, belief in the ‘Devil’ depends upon each one’s personal opinion and perspective.
Co-incidences happen too – if I throw the apple on the floor and at the same time a bomb is dropped on country A by B, it doesn’t mean that my apple caused the apple to fall. Each of the incidents was independent in their existence and not a cause or outcome of the other. Similarly, the couple’s fatal accident and their encounter with the stranger were two different incidents.
I’d like to end with a quote by Deepak Chopra “There’s a conspiracy of co-incidences that weaves the web of Karma or destiny and creates an individual’s personal life – mine, or yours.”
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
TOK Assembly- Script & Cast
SKIT – TOK ASSEMBLY
Characters:
Psychologist- Somiran
Detective- Jeet
Audience people (3) - Aashna, Ramya, Rahul Sheth
Psychologist’s office. Waiting for patient
Detective enters
Detective: Doctor! The world has lost all reason! Nobody understands my amazing intellect!!
Psychologist: maybe I will. Please elaborate.
Detective: It all started that day……….
…..I was investigating the murder of young Mr and Mrs Blah. I was about to crack the case when the police inspector’s nine year old cracked it before me!!
Psychologist: But what were the case details?
Detective (stands up and starts pacing): the couple lived in a round house with their maid, butler and cook. They were found murdered one morning. When questioned, the cook claimed to be chopping vegetables with a knife in the kitchen, the butler was polishing Mr’s axe, while the maid was sweeping the corners of the house. I knew it was the cook, but the darn child claimed she knew better! (Ask the audience) Do you know who she said the murderer was??
Aashna: THE MAID!!
A round house has no corners. The maid was lying, of course!!
Detective is stunned for a moment (stunned actions and music)
Detective: Okaayyy.. (Fuming): the second case is much harder, a true test of intelligence and reasoning.
Psychologist: Calm down and tell me what happened
Detective: Ms. Blah came to with a complaint that she had been swindled out of her cats. She said that the real estate agent promised to sell her a square room with a cat in every corner, with 3 cats in front of each and a cat at the end of each tail. She said that the room she got had fewer cats than she was promised, and according to me she was right, and the man was lying. But again! The young lady’s even younger sister cracked this one and walked with the credit proving the man innocent. (To the audience) How many cats do you think she was due?
Rahul: 32!! Of course
Ramya: no, duh! The answer is 4! Think about it. 4 corners for a square. 1 cat in each corner. 3 corners in front of each one corner therefore 3 cats in front of each cat. Each cat is attached or, at the end of, its own tail! Therefore, there were 4 cats due!
Detective faints.
Psychologist: to reach a conclusion, to know an answer, reasoning is very important. Knowledge and arguments devoid of reason do not withstand the truth tests of coherence and correspondence. Reason is a primary means of confirming beliefs. Knowing, that knowledge is justified true belief, we know that Reasoning and logic are two tools necessary to make a knowledge claim. As seen, reasoning is a skill that one develops…(wry smile) unless of course you are like Detective XxxxX
Characters:
Psychologist- Somiran
Detective- Jeet
Audience people (3) - Aashna, Ramya, Rahul Sheth
Psychologist’s office. Waiting for patient
Detective enters
Detective: Doctor! The world has lost all reason! Nobody understands my amazing intellect!!
Psychologist: maybe I will. Please elaborate.
Detective: It all started that day……….
…..I was investigating the murder of young Mr and Mrs Blah. I was about to crack the case when the police inspector’s nine year old cracked it before me!!
Psychologist: But what were the case details?
Detective (stands up and starts pacing): the couple lived in a round house with their maid, butler and cook. They were found murdered one morning. When questioned, the cook claimed to be chopping vegetables with a knife in the kitchen, the butler was polishing Mr’s axe, while the maid was sweeping the corners of the house. I knew it was the cook, but the darn child claimed she knew better! (Ask the audience) Do you know who she said the murderer was??
Aashna: THE MAID!!
A round house has no corners. The maid was lying, of course!!
Detective is stunned for a moment (stunned actions and music)
Detective: Okaayyy.. (Fuming): the second case is much harder, a true test of intelligence and reasoning.
Psychologist: Calm down and tell me what happened
Detective: Ms. Blah came to with a complaint that she had been swindled out of her cats. She said that the real estate agent promised to sell her a square room with a cat in every corner, with 3 cats in front of each and a cat at the end of each tail. She said that the room she got had fewer cats than she was promised, and according to me she was right, and the man was lying. But again! The young lady’s even younger sister cracked this one and walked with the credit proving the man innocent. (To the audience) How many cats do you think she was due?
Rahul: 32!! Of course
Ramya: no, duh! The answer is 4! Think about it. 4 corners for a square. 1 cat in each corner. 3 corners in front of each one corner therefore 3 cats in front of each cat. Each cat is attached or, at the end of, its own tail! Therefore, there were 4 cats due!
Detective faints.
Psychologist: to reach a conclusion, to know an answer, reasoning is very important. Knowledge and arguments devoid of reason do not withstand the truth tests of coherence and correspondence. Reason is a primary means of confirming beliefs. Knowing, that knowledge is justified true belief, we know that Reasoning and logic are two tools necessary to make a knowledge claim. As seen, reasoning is a skill that one develops…(wry smile) unless of course you are like Detective XxxxX
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Mothman Prophecies
The Mothman Prophecies
The extract of the Mothman Prophecies which we heard described an incident that saw the amalgamation of superstition, coincidence and paranormal belief. The excerpt highlighted an instance at which a couple was visited in the dark of night by an unexpected visitor, dressed in morbid albeit formal attire. The appearance of the stranger formed the basis for the impression the couple formed of him, highlighting how perception can form the basis for judgment. There appears little to indicate why the stranger approached their house, but because of his apparel and the atmosphere outside, the couple perceived him to be threatening. This laid the platform for the development of fear; an emotion. The atmosphere was stormy and windy, and the setting was complimented by the nature of the town in which it was not a usual occurrence for random strangers to approach. The obvious novelty of the situation would have led to the development and production of many emotions, foremost of which would have been fear. It was this fear that would have haunted the couple, and reminded them of the incident, rather than having them forget it immediately. Emotion can therefore be attributed as the cause for the almost omnipresent nature of the memory that continued to be with the couple long after that fateful night. The 4 ways of knowing contributed in equal part to taking the situation to its climax; at least the rising point of the extract. Reason too cannot be ignored. Keeping in mind that the couple had been educated it is apparent that they had an idea and a belief as per the existence of the devil. Was that man really the devil? According to the reasoning of the couple and their friends, he was. Although the reasoning was clouded by religious bias, and knowledge of possibility, the couple obviously reasoned out the visit of the stranger to befitting with their belief in the paranormal, and the concept of the devil. This belief would therefore have been strengthened by the occurrence of this incident; despite acknowledging that from a rational perspective the incident could have been a mere coincidence and happened to anybody else.
Knowledge has been defined as justified true belief. Was the couple’s belied justified? Perhaps. Was it true? The question poses an inherent tautology which is best left unanswered, up to personal opinion. The couple however, believed that it was true, and this led to the involvement of the fourth way of knowing: language. As the couple narrated the incident to their friends, they only had the basis of their interpretation of the event was based on the narration they received. Whether it was exaggerated or inaccurate in parts it is difficult to say. In keeping with the vehement belief the couple had, when considered with the time period (1967), superstition and belief in the paranormal world, it can be determined that the couple believed that it was knowledge that they had been visited by the devil. This “knowledge” was propagated by them, and therefore, when they died in the bridge collapse the immediate conclusion reached was that it had been the fulfillment of the foreboding and foreshadowing apparition they had witnessed. How did one reach this conclusion? It seems apparent that by using coherence the couple’s friends put two and two together to try and explain their sudden demise. However, in keeping with the same they did not consider the others who had also died during the incident, one of the primary pieces of evidence which suggests that it was in fact, nothing more than a coincidence. This leads me to believe, that the friends reasoning too was to a certain extent clouded by emotion, because about 40 years into the future and from a completely unbiased perspective it appears to me that their death was nothing more than a mere coincidence, albeit one in a series which would be rare but not impossible. I cannot say with absolute conviction that they had been visited by the devil, and therefore I cannot relate the two incidents. It appears therefore, that the two events may have been entirely unrelated, and that the couple and their friends may have been victims of their own blind beliefs.
The extract of the Mothman Prophecies which we heard described an incident that saw the amalgamation of superstition, coincidence and paranormal belief. The excerpt highlighted an instance at which a couple was visited in the dark of night by an unexpected visitor, dressed in morbid albeit formal attire. The appearance of the stranger formed the basis for the impression the couple formed of him, highlighting how perception can form the basis for judgment. There appears little to indicate why the stranger approached their house, but because of his apparel and the atmosphere outside, the couple perceived him to be threatening. This laid the platform for the development of fear; an emotion. The atmosphere was stormy and windy, and the setting was complimented by the nature of the town in which it was not a usual occurrence for random strangers to approach. The obvious novelty of the situation would have led to the development and production of many emotions, foremost of which would have been fear. It was this fear that would have haunted the couple, and reminded them of the incident, rather than having them forget it immediately. Emotion can therefore be attributed as the cause for the almost omnipresent nature of the memory that continued to be with the couple long after that fateful night. The 4 ways of knowing contributed in equal part to taking the situation to its climax; at least the rising point of the extract. Reason too cannot be ignored. Keeping in mind that the couple had been educated it is apparent that they had an idea and a belief as per the existence of the devil. Was that man really the devil? According to the reasoning of the couple and their friends, he was. Although the reasoning was clouded by religious bias, and knowledge of possibility, the couple obviously reasoned out the visit of the stranger to befitting with their belief in the paranormal, and the concept of the devil. This belief would therefore have been strengthened by the occurrence of this incident; despite acknowledging that from a rational perspective the incident could have been a mere coincidence and happened to anybody else.
Knowledge has been defined as justified true belief. Was the couple’s belied justified? Perhaps. Was it true? The question poses an inherent tautology which is best left unanswered, up to personal opinion. The couple however, believed that it was true, and this led to the involvement of the fourth way of knowing: language. As the couple narrated the incident to their friends, they only had the basis of their interpretation of the event was based on the narration they received. Whether it was exaggerated or inaccurate in parts it is difficult to say. In keeping with the vehement belief the couple had, when considered with the time period (1967), superstition and belief in the paranormal world, it can be determined that the couple believed that it was knowledge that they had been visited by the devil. This “knowledge” was propagated by them, and therefore, when they died in the bridge collapse the immediate conclusion reached was that it had been the fulfillment of the foreboding and foreshadowing apparition they had witnessed. How did one reach this conclusion? It seems apparent that by using coherence the couple’s friends put two and two together to try and explain their sudden demise. However, in keeping with the same they did not consider the others who had also died during the incident, one of the primary pieces of evidence which suggests that it was in fact, nothing more than a coincidence. This leads me to believe, that the friends reasoning too was to a certain extent clouded by emotion, because about 40 years into the future and from a completely unbiased perspective it appears to me that their death was nothing more than a mere coincidence, albeit one in a series which would be rare but not impossible. I cannot say with absolute conviction that they had been visited by the devil, and therefore I cannot relate the two incidents. It appears therefore, that the two events may have been entirely unrelated, and that the couple and their friends may have been victims of their own blind beliefs.
The Mothman Prophecies
We listened to the story from John Keel’s The Mothman Prophecies which deals with paranormal occurrences. The story leads to much discussion and argument from a TOK point of view and leads us to ask the eternal question – Can we believe everything that we see?”
In the excerpt, a couple in
I think that the couple presumed that the stranger was the devil because that is what they wanted to believe. Mark Twain famously said that ‘you cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.’ The Virginians in the 1960s had a preconceived superstition and they seemed to link all unusual happenings to it. There can be two reasons attributed to it.
The first is the ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy which is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. However, many events follow sequential patterns without being causally related.
The second reason can be that ‘believing is seeing’ rather than the other way around. We do not shape our beliefs on the basis of what we see; rather, what we see is influenced by our beliefs. Often, we do not see what is there, but rather what we want to or expect to see. The stranger could have been genuinely seeking the help of the couple but they saw him as the devil because they wanted to see that. The whole setting of a stormy night, the black clothes and the strange accent could have also supplemented their perception of the stranger as the devil.
The reasoning of the couple and their friends seems illogical to me. Their belief in the devil cannot be justified, but at the same time, it cannot be disproved either. According to me, a mere stranger stranded in the middle of a rainy night, was mistaken to be the devil since the people of
I will end with a quote by William James – “Whilst part of what we perceive comes through our senses from the object before us, another part (and it may be the larger part) always comes out of our own mind.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)