"Be Water, My Friend"

I have to admit being annoyed that this was the topic chosen, a little because the abstractness of the title would limit some of the participation, but also because it is a title that oozes pretension whether the one suggesting it means to do so or not.  It is the well-known quote from Bruce Lee used in a car commercial a few years ago, and also from some movie the man made before his untimely death.  The thing about Asian faces in Hollywood roles is that they are often assigned some kind of mystical role and everything that comes out of their mouths is imbued with some deep, metaphorical meaning when it might just be words strung together to sound nice.  When they are not the menacing villains, they are Zen masters, offering enlightenment through riddles and nature imagery that is deceptively simple, if only we would let our overworked minds "see" reality instead of trying to analyze it.  This is not to say that there is no wisdom in Eastern thought, but that the way it is presented to us in film is superficial at best.  Gathering a bit more context for those particular words, we see that Lee (or his character) speaks about the power and resilience of water as an element.  Water flows, it is flexible.  It can also destroy in a tidal wave or storm.  Water is both pliable and forceful.  Following its example, we can adapt to new situations and still remain true to ourselves.  There may also be the idea that water is necessary for life, so we should be embracing our roles as protectors of the continuity of life, probably human, but also perhaps all life on this earth.  Still, the pop culture quote left a bad taste in my mouth for what was not an uninteresting discussion.

The Source is well known for his suggestions of this type, and not with pretentiousness but with an innocent and almost naive curiosity about them.  He said that since we are mostly water in our physical makeup, we might interpret the quote to mean that we should be ourselves, our natural selves rather than what others expect us to be.  He continued, wondering if our fascination with thinking and rationality is a distortion of our true humanity.  There is a cult of reason in our society, perhaps giving reason and logical thinking more credit than they deserve.  We overlook many other characteristics of humanity, more intuitive and less easily explained, in our worship of the thought process.  He reminded us of the idea that there are things that cannot be observed unless the mind is silent.  He also explained that there is a Chinese concept of "no action" which does not actually mean doing nothing, but rather allowing only the right things to happen naturally.  Later he compared logic to a trap that limits our understanding of reality, but not a trap without an escape.  He did not elaborate on the possible escape methods but noted that acting on intuition does not mean that we are not using our reason.  Still, he warned, there is a point when thoughts become not only not useful, but counterproductive,  He then wandered into the concept of words as representatives of reality, comparing them to a system of sampling that our brains construct into a whole without having to expend the energy of processing and storing all the information.  He returned to his main idea by asking if we the participants thought philosophy brought happiness, and if it was better to be right or to be happy.  He insisted that we are missing something by putting the mind on a pedestal.  His final contribution began with his attempt to answer what he thought another participant had left hanging as a doubt: what should we be water for?  His answer was, to optimize life.  He continued, saying rigid opinions dictate our view of the world, normally giving it a negative and dangerous tone.  "A vale of tears," he quoted to us.  As he was mentioning the recent earthquake that left thousands dead in Nepal as an example of rigidity being toppled by a surprise movement, the supposed questioner reacted with self-righteous fury, saying he was not in fact defending rigidity and he had even answered his own question.  He whined on and on, probably about being misunderstood, finally having to be calmed by the Leader.  Allowed to continue, the Source related inflexible views to religious violence, another of his pet topics.  He believes a rigid worldview creates an environment where the mind must be constantly reacting and analyzing everything it comes across; when everything is negative, it can be a type of hell.  His take-away from the phrase was finally that we should not have any closely held views, but be more flexible in our interpretations of the world.  The offended idiot was allowed to speak for a moment and he huffed and puffed about the Source talking about a completely different topic than he had been talking about.

Our Doctor was once again surprised by the direction we were taking our discussions in terms of topics.  He admitted to knowing nothing about Bruce Lee, but said when someone says, "My friend," that person is attempting to sell something.  A problem in the modern world is that now people know too much, and we give verbal solutions to problems instead of practical ones.  He recognized the metaphorical reality of the phrase, but also said that philosophy is precision.  He then asked what condition the water should be in for us to emulate it and be successful; any condition of water is affected by gravity, by temperature, by any number of factors.  In fact, he thought we could say never be water just because of its helplessness in the face of those factors.  However, anybody can be wrong, and he declared himself glad to be wrong, since it can be a learning experience.  Even before the Source got on his language track, the Doctor mentioned language as a mere substitute for what is real, and said he knows his language is a lie.  Still, his language might seem harsh to some when he said he hated Bruce Lee, the expression about water, and while he did not generally hate the Source, he hated him at that moment.  In a later contribution, he said it was interesting to discuss things with people from different educational and vocational backgrounds since it provides the opportunity to be exposed to new perspectives.  He ended up agreeing with the Source about the need for more than pure rationality in our lives, but lamented the time humanity has wasted on mythology, feelings, "nothing".  His final recommendation for us was that we should cure our wounds and look to new solutions instead of remaining anchored to old states of mind.

The True Philosopher spent his writing time, as well as most of his first contribution, on the advantages of flexibility exemplified in water.  He clarified in the meeting that the understanding of other people is what we should be referring to in this metaphor, which is an idea for capturing the essence of experience.  Water flows and seeps deep, getting to the heart of matters.  We are also fortunate that the True Philosopher comes from an Eastern country, although he calls himself only half Oriental, so his perspective was a welcome novelty, in the sense of it being something we are not familiar with hardly at all.  In contrast to some other comments, he explained that the metaphors of Eastern philosophies/religions are meant to be guides to living and therefore practical rather than abstract theory.  He defined the general differences between Eastern and Western thought as being reflection, appreciation and simple for the East, and discourse, analysis and critique being of the West.  He even said the Oriental mind was a simple one, in that imagery from nature is the go-to tool for instruction rather than plotting linear and rational thought processes.  His final words were that fluidity is the issue here, the ability to flow like a stream as a method for good living.

The Leader also seemed a little frustrated with the lack of solidity in the topic in his written thoughts, while in the meeting he declared himself unconvinced by the idea of sampling reality.  Linguistic codes do not follow the same development as the mathematical codes used for audio sampling.  This topic is another case of lack of context that obscures meaning for us, or possibly the lack of meaning.  Lee cannot explain what he meant when he said the words, although the Source can tell us what they meant to him personally.  Although there are some qualities worth taking on from water, like flexibility, for the Leader learning skills are key to survival.  Later on, he complained a bit about the interpretations we take away from the "samples" we receive, saying that we do not even interpret for ourselves.  We are told what to expect.  Most people never fully develop their capacity to interpret and question information around them.

The Seeker of Happiness bit into the sampling idea in his first contribution, saying it was very simple from a technological perspective - pure math.  He then focused on probably the most famous context we have for the phrase, which is the car commercial.  He wondered why a car company would give us this advice.  The purpose of a company is to make money selling its products, not to enlighten the public.  He also mentioned the metaphorical aspect of the phrase, admitting metaphor is a part of the language, but he insisted that a metaphor has no meaning of its own.  All meaning comes from context, and much of the time that context is individual.  We need words to think, in his opinion, and to express our thoughts, but at the same time we have nothing truly original.  Everything we know is based on past experience.  As the meeting went on, he also became frustrated with the topic and in his last contribution said we had been talking about ridiculous things.  He doubted any one of us understood the commercial, and by extension the original phrase, but not understanding something does not make it deep or philosophical.  He found the discussion to boil down to "pop" philosophy, containing nothing serious.  In the end, he stated baldly that being water is the worst thing to do, either as a warning against jumping into ideas we do not fully understand or in a fit of pique.

The Educator began by saying she did not vote for the topic, so she was not responsible for it and the silliness or difficulties that might come out of it, but she did end up taking the search for positive aspects of water seriously.  For one, there is a sort of universal quality to water as an idea.  The planet is covered with water, even seeing it spring from the center of landmasses in lakes and rivers.  Besides the previously mentioned flow and flexibility, water is nurturing; without water, the land cannot be fruitful.  Also, when we imagine water, we imagine it in a pure and clean state, which are other qualities to emulate.  While deep water can also be dangerous, it is receptive and invites trust.  She mentioned that when swimming one has to trust the water, and go as a friend and not an adversary.  That is probably the reason I am not a swimmer.  Despite some argument about specific bodies of water being polluted, she stuck with the purity aspect, telling us that we can succeed if we are sincere, humble and transparent, like pure water.  Given her background in the arts, I wonder if her worldview is somewhat more prepared to accept this type of metaphor than that of more mechanical minds.

to raise the dead

Easter has come and gone for this year, but Madrid "spring" hasn't quite decided to stay.  And as soon as it does, it will be time for summer.  *grump*  Before that though, I could try something different: a Swedish beer, labeled Easter Ale.

Is the rooster calling out a resurrection?

The beer gives off a sweet fruity odor and has a dark orangey gold color.  The head isn't too thick, but resistant and a sort of off-white.  The taste is smooth and only slightly bitter.  I half expected a sweeter taste to go with the smell, or a little citrusiness, but I don't get any of that from this ale.  It's a more standard taste than many crafts I've tried.  I find the bitterness hangs around a little bit in the mouth after a few sips, but it's a subtle flavor.  It stays mild and unintrusive, a good sipping beer for relaxing with a movie or with some friends.  It does have more of a warm weather feel for me, so there's something to keep in mind for the next few months.

Supplier: La Birratorium
Price: €3.50

Is Artificial Intelligence a Threat?

It is something of an age-old question, if we consider artificial intelligence to be just another step in the evolution of technology.  The key difference for many people is that artificial intelligence might make us question our very humanity, not just cause changes in lifestyle.  As we see in movies and literature, there are fears of an artificial person replacing real people in the feelings of others, since being non-human, they could be lacking human flaws while preserving human qualities.  We imagine an artificial intelligence to be superior, almost god-like, and fear it will end up controlling us.  The characters of HAL and VIKI are examples of this.  Neither example, it seems, really wants to control humans for pure power, but to "protect" us from our own weaknesses like a helicopter parent.  There is an element of power in giving that protection, of course, but when we imagine brutal dictators or machine overlords, they are not exactly parental.

The Source referred to the Industrial Revolution and the film Modern Times as examples of past advancement and fear of change, saying that we have adjusted to technology in the past and we will adapt to any future change as well.  Although there are problems, and unforeseen consequences of new inventions and discoveries, ultimately they offer us solutions or they disappear as quickly as they came.  For her, the fear of new technologies in general and artificial intelligence in particular comes down to the fear of losing control over our own lives.

The True Philosopher wrote more of the dangers of other humans using AI against us than the dangers posed by AI itself, and continued along these lines in the meeting.  He reminded us that AI exists today in many of our appliances and gadgets, not in some sci-fi future.  Some experts, however, are sure that artificial intelligence will never overtake natural intelligence, one being Hubert Dreyfus.  He also questioned the limited definition we normally give intelligence when it relates to human-created entities, saying that we now recognize several varieties of intelligence in humans.  Why should we limit artificial intelligence to the cognitive?

The Deep Thinker examined a number of viewpoints on the possible threat to humanity, saying it depends on the mind using the technology.  There is the threat of losing livelihoods due to a machines superior output or efficiency.  There is also the threat to our self-image; we see a reflection of ourselves in a robot or android that might remind us of our own mechanics.  Are we nothing but machines ourselves?  Even bots can learn to converse like humans.  He told us some have even been used for therapeutic purposes.  While the horror of being a machine might be true, I also wonder if we fear machines being human.  In movies such as A.I. and television shows like Futurama, the conflict between fleshly humans and robotic humans can be seen.  Futurama even presented it as analogous to racism and segregation in the American 20th century in the episode "I Dated a Robot".  Also interesting to note is that bots that pass the Turing test are often the ones that are rude.  We expect other humans to be impolite on the internet, so the bot that calls us assholes is less suspicious.  The Deep Thinker conceded that fear of recognizing the humanity in an object could very well exist, besides our own loss of humanity as organic machines.  He also found the use of the word artificial interesting, stating that it is only used when we feel some pressure to distinguish ourselves from something we use, like an "artificial" limb.  Machines are extensions of ourselves, like any other tool.  He brought up Siri as an example of existing AI, a program running an algorithm that allows it to modify its behavior based on experience and new information.  This is the basis of human intelligence, as well as a trademark of AI.  We worry about the danger of malfunctions in our machines, but we have our own malfunctions.  Only the simplest of programs are not normally faulty.  Finally, he reasoned that the AI we imagine in movies and literature is an attempt to imprint human character on machines.  Then he said that our own intelligence is not "natural", that is not something found outside of the insulated society we have built around ourselves.

Our Leader also firmly stated that the threat to us is not posed by AI, but by the humans that create and use it.  We want to create something god-like and better than ourselves, but our own limitations of imagination, prediction and reasoning prevent us from being able to create something perfect.  The fears represented by Hollywood are "mythology" and are best cast aside.  As for the Deep Thinker's question about the word artificial, he insisted it was not necessary to ponder it too much.  Besides that, we could make androids or robots out of biomatter.  The distinction between artificial and natural in this case is merely one of being consciously created by a human or not.  There is also the question of emotion and morality in machines.  As mentioned by the True Philosopher, cognitive intelligence is but one issue, what about emotional understanding and compassionate decision making?  In the movie I, Robot a robot saves an adult with greater chances of survival from a car accident, while humans would choose to save the child if they could, possibly an evolutionary tactic to give more importance to future generations than present/past.  How can we program a system to override its logical conclusion in extreme situations?  Without an emotional history, how can we encode morality into a machine?  The weakest point of AI, in the Leader's opinion, is how it reacts in bad situations, when unexpected circumstances arise that it has not been programed to handle.

The Writer also supports the human users = real threat idea, saying that the portrayals of Hollywood and literature are simply there to profit from our fear, not to show any accurate picture of what is being developed.  She also reminded us that machines are tools, there to help us solve problems and do work, but ultimately developed by humans, so we are responsible for them and how they function.

The Educator pointed out another aspect of intelligence that had not been much explored, that being humor.  Jokes written by computers are not funny, at least to her.  As mentioned previously, they lack the emotional history and the empathy to generate stories and comments that strike people as funny.  Could AI one day produce enjoyable comedy?  It does not seem to be impossible, but it likely depends on achieving the successful programming of emotional intelligence as well as memory capacity.  The Educator also let us in on her pining for a chip that gives one fluent command of a foreign language, in our situation, English.  Many others in the group nodded wistfully as she described it.

The Seeker of Happiness explained how he uses recordings of games to improve his playing, but that is rote memory, not intelligence.  It is using memory and limited resources efficiently that defines intelligence, in his opinion.  AI should not have enormous stores of memory, it should have a simple program to keep the most useful information for the future, as we do, more or less.  He also saw no risk in AI, but in the people in power that control it.  He often speaks about the haves and have-nots, but this time he ended with a furious rant about the exploitation people suffer at the hands of the wealthy and powerful, not only in poor regions of the world, but also in develop and "rich" countries in Europe.  AI might be able to squash dissent more efficiently for the ruling class, but it is still the rulers that send the bots to do their bidding.

whale of a beer

I can't help but think of the flenser when I see the name of this city, a profession known to me only because I read Blubber as a child.  It's one of those cute little bottles that I see many German beers in on the shelves of the German stores (not so much in the beer stores, though).  The cap has some decoration too.

Not a whaling ship, is it?

There's a musky bitterness that comes out when the top comes off with a satisfying pop.  The beer - lemony colored, translucent, fluffy headed - looks refreshing and summery.  I find the first sip a bit strong on the grain, giving it almost a dusty texture, but that might be the power of my own mind.  After the initial shock, it's tasty, although sweeter than most pilsners I'm familiar with.  Very German-like flavor, though.  The evenings aren't quite warm enough yet to fully enjoy this beer, since it has a cold beverage profile rather than just cool or room temperature, but it's good to have something to look forward to.

We Don't Get It - Meeting

Since there was a holiday weekend in the way, we did not meet the week before, so the past writing was only mine.  It was my topic, so I had some kind of responsibility.

Our Doctor presented himself as impressed with the topic, mostly because it is something he never in his life thought he would discuss in an even slightly philosophical way.  He acknowledged that philosophy is reshaping itself for a new world, allowing these kinds of topics to be considered.  "Understanding" is something that has been discussed before in philosophy, but this colloquial, even vulgar idea of "getting it" was not to be found in his search.  He then delved into medicine, which he is naturally wont to do, explaining how the brain and the skin come from a common source.  The brain is, in fact, a type of specialized skin.  Our understanding of things should therefore be connected with our senses (particularly touch, I imagine).  He reminisced about reading the first play with scraps still to be read, Prometheus Unbound, calling it terrible.  "It is not theater," he criticized.  That style of performance might be gotten in ancient times, but now it is not part of our experience.  He went off a bit on a tangent, lamenting the time humanity has spent destroying things when we could have been constructing.  The Doctor then turned to the dictionary, reading off just a few of the possible uses of "get", reminding us of the great possibility for confusion in unclear language.  We think we know more than we do know, and we often say we get it when we do not.  However, we also do the opposite, insisting we do not get it when we get it perfectly.  We just prefer not to give the other person the satisfaction of being understood.  What about "it" then?  "It" is nothing.  Even the nonexistence of "it" is "it".  The referent for that pronoun is entirely dependent on the context of speaking.  After allowing some other contributions, the Doctor took another turn, saying right off the bat that he was against words.  Words have constantly been used against him.  They are tricky, not to be believed.  Yet, people believe lies after hearing them three or hour times.  Nobody knows what the intention of a word is when it is alone, the words around it affect it, not to mention the intonation with which it is spoken.  He then brought up art as a transmitter of messages, saying words need a translator but art is personal.  An image can provoke a sensation, and human beings are made of sensations and intuitions.  Finally, he spoke of getting oneself.  The idea is, if we do not get ourselves, who can?  However, in his opinion, if one says "I understand myself," s/he is "a liar, a thief, a bad actor and a very bad person."  Are we prepared to understand ourselves?: NO.  Other things?:  eh, sometimes.  He finished by telling us that life is not about understanding, but feeling and sensation.

The True Philosopher wrote but a short essay for us this time around, focusing on getting connections as a means to understand the world.  In the meeting he commented on the plural subject pronoun, saying if I don't get it, it is not a big deal, but if we, that is, the whole group don't get it, there must be a more serious problem afoot.  He was also clear about the need for context to produce meaning.  Individual words or phrases might as well be blots of ink on the paper or random noises on the wind; until we have a context to fit them into, they transmit nothing.

The Seeker of Happiness insisted on the need for community to promote the need to communicate.  Not everyone has the same perspective, however.  We do not always know or use the precise words to transmit, say, an image from our own heads to the hand of another.  Following the Leader's example, he also mentioned the difficulties of using a language not one's own, since structures vary and cultural expectations exert a noticeable influence on how words are used.  He compared Spanish and English as an example, saying English simply names things, while Spanish has a tendency to describe in a more roundabout way, not to mention speakers' habitual repetition of words and phrases.  He theorized that the softer Iberian climate made Spanish speakers more likely to tolerate standing around and shooting the shit, without a deep motivation to get to the point.  English weather, on the other hand, encourages people to get their business done, and the dash off to the pub (I suppose).  At the end, he asked if it was possible to think without words.  It seems all humans with language have a need to use words, even in their own minds.  The sensorally deprived use words in the way they can, for instance, deaf people imagine signs or the printed words.

The Leader pondered ideas in translation both in writing and in the meeting.  He also reminded us of the utter lack of universality in languages, not just in the global ones, but even small languages have a tendency to form dialects in different geographical areas.  He also emphasized context as necessary for meaning, saying "I don't find Jim," could be just as meaningful as "I don't get it," for the same idea.  He warned us later that society functions on superficial meanings, not on deep meanings, as we are not trained to suss out deep meanings normally.  The amount of inheritance versus experience and training in a person's use of language is not completely measured.  The Leader also pointed out that "getting it" is not limited to understanding, but also refers to being convinced or appreciating an idea, suggestion or work of art.

Connecting with the idea of art conveying messages, the Writer told us how David Lynch films spoke to her, even with hardly any dialog.  She felt she "got" these films, and so did many people, only through the images that were offered to the audience.  This is the same with other visual arts.  Not everyone "gets" specific styles of painting.  The emotions simply are not stimulated by the picture.  She also told us about her experience talking to a discussion group and using what she thought was a common metaphor, but realizing that nobody else in the group could understand it.  Each generation has its own culture, she said, and by extension its own language.  She disagreed with the Doctor, and his conclusion that we are not capable of understanding ourselves; in her view, we must understand ourselves before understanding others.  "Getting it" begins at home, so to speak.

What nobody else mentioned was the situation where "I/We don't get it," is perhaps most commonly uttered: when somebody tells a joke.  All of the possible interpretations fall under this circumstance:  I do not understand the joke; I do not appreciate the joke; I do not agree with what the joke implies.  There is also the exclusion component, since humor is related to the culture or group one belongs to.  We do not get other groups' jokes in the same way or with the same facility we get our own.  Maybe the key to tolerance is poking fun at everybody, and learning to live with how everyone else laughs at us.

no, no tomatoes

It's still time for stouts I say, it's only early spring...ah, who am I kidding, it's always time for stout in my book.  Italian beers do not figure prominently on the shelves, so I can't resist the possible newness either.

It has the good black color, and a milk chocolatey head, not especially odorous.  Getting close to the beer you can get a whiff of sour milky stout.  The first taste gives a dark chocolate punch, with a sort of toasty follow-up.  This really isn't a very bitter stout, although it is hardy and strong flavored.  The taste has a somewhat higher note than I normally associate with stouts, but certainly not unpleasant.  As is often the case, it does build up the sweetness with some time, but it's a very mild mild sort of sweet.  Rather than coffee, I'm going with mocha as the defining flavor for this beer.  It is tasty, perhaps a bit heavy for a warmer day...nah, that wouldn't stop me at all.  I think I couldn't quite get behind a spaghetti dinner with it, though.  A nice tiramisu might hit the spot. 

Supplier: Birra y Paz
Price:€5

"We Don't Get It"

Like many of my suggestions, this one has its roots in snark.  Still, there is plenty of room for exploration, principally, I would think, of the limits of human perception and comprehension.  This is a simple phrase, perfectly normal in English, but somewhat lacking in context.  There are many ways to attack it, pun intended.  Basically, there are two words that are not perfectly clear without some context, and those are the words that really carry the weight while being irritatingly diffuse and vague: get and it.

"Get" is one of those unbearably useful English verbs that occurs in thousands of phrases and drives learners to distraction.  The various meanings are many, but in this structure there are really only two possible without a severe stretching of understanding.  The first is what is normally meant in this sort of phrase: understand.  We don't get it = we don't understand it.  Why would get be possible in this instance?  We are referring to the absorption of knowledge or information, that which could find a place inside our intellectual view of the world.  The data enters our minds and connects itself to the rest of our store of knowledge, adding to and complementing what we have already consumed.  We "get" this information in the sense that it is now part of us, we own it in some way.  It is almost something unquestionable and by rights within our power.  Since the phrase is negative, the information must be something out of our understanding, perhaps even impossible to understand, given the use of the present simple, which implies the habitual and universal truthfulness of the phrase.  There is some overlap with "receive", another more formal synonym of get, since the data must be received to be understood.  We also receive/get news, calls, gifts and acts that demonstrate feelings (e.g. get hugged/kissed/yelled at).  The casual phrase "Get this," implies both nuances, in that the listener is about the hear some information that the speaker hopes will be understood in the same way the speaker understands it.  As a question, a short question, "Get it?" is always connected to understanding.  It asks whether the object of the question has processed data to such an extent that it has integrated itself into the store of knowledge.  Although the verb get by itself has many other uses, in this context understand and receive are really the only ideas that fit.

The other weighty word is "it".  It - third person singular pronoun, impersonal, subject or object.  Like all pronouns, it takes the place of a noun when we are avoiding repetition or use of words that provoke strong emotions.  It is generally not used for people, only sometimes for babies that haven't quite shown a personality yet, so "it" is always an object or idea.  In English, as in other languages, "it" can function as a dummy subject when the verb has no clear actor, as in, "It's raining again," or "It's me," or even "It's a Magical World."   In the phrase in question, it is the object of the verb, that which is gotten or not.  The most probable interpretation is that it is some concept when get refers to understanding and an object when to get is to receive.  With no context at all, it is impossible to know what the pronoun is standing in for, but I would venture the guess that the most common replaced object is "the idea I am telling you about."

When we do not "get it" to the frustration of others, there are two possibilities at work: one, we are not attentive, learned, or intelligent enough to grasp the idea; two, the speaker is not communicating the idea effectively for any number of reasons.  The presence of one possibility does not preclude the presence of the other, in fact they are probably always working together to some extent.  Why is it so important to "get it" and have other people "get" us?  As human beings, we crave connections with other human beings.  We can create connections by sharing ideas and building mutual understanding of the world, fostering a common vision and interpretation of reality that creates emotional bonds between people and gives them a sense of community.  To not get it is to be excluded.  We can exclude ourselves by refusing to understand or admit explanations.  We can be excluded by opaque or nonsensical "explanations" or by the refusal to explain at all.  Getting it becomes the key to membership in the club, and being told dismissively, "You just don't get it," is the clubhouse door slamming in the hopeful candidate's face.  It works the other way as well.  Those in the club refuse to "get" new ideas because they do not need to, and new ideas bring complications.  Who needs to expend the energy to modify a worldview?  Not us!  That new idea makes no sense, it is ridiculous, only a lunatic could have thought if it.  We don't get it.

What is clear is that nobody understands everything.  Too much information is within our grasp for us to be able to absorb it all completely, which leaves us with superficial understanding of the majority of topics.  Diving into a subject can unlock doors of perspective we never knew existed, although others were perfectly aware of it, which makes every learned idea the entry fee to a new "club".  The best we can do is keep an open mind, without rejecting shifts in worldview out of hand.  At the same time, we must keep our thoughts orderly, since jumbled understanding is as good as not getting it at all.

noble birds

Vulturis beer does not let a lot of information come off of its webpage, but they're more or less local.  Surely they'll show up at a beer fair sometime.  Some might be taken aback by the bird they use, but they're really magnificent in flight, and necessary components of the ecosystem besides.  I'm quite sure it isn't meant to encourage beer scavenging.  Tasting a little is one thing, but get your own damn drink to enjoy it fully!

There's a slightly sweet odor when the cap comes off, but nothing too powerful.  I was expecting a little more citrus from an ale, but I should keep in mind it's amber.  It has a toasty color in the glass, and there is a little whiff of citrus once it gets free of the bottle.  The head isn't overly abundant, but has a nice, clean color.  The taste is pithy, a tussle between bitter and sweet, like an orange with a lot of white clinging to it.  There is a little sediment from the in-bottle fermentation that trickles out at the end, which we are recommended to not consume, and the second glass is much cloudier than the first if you don't empty the bottle the first pour.  In spite of a small change in appearance, the taste remains the same, bright and refreshing, smooth and perfectly drinkable on a spring evening.  It's not especially strong or demanding, so snacks would not be out of the question, but this amber ale is perfectly fine on its own as a day-ender for somebody with a beery sweet tooth.

Supplier:  Birra y Paz
Price: €2.80