Why do I see black birds in my peripheral vision?

Artist depiction.

Black birds exist. This is not about them. This is about the other black birds, the ones that are 2’s. You’ve certainly had this experience. Peacefully existing in an outdoor space and there they are, black birds dancing and fluttering their blurry wings right on the edge of your vision. Ignore it, chalk it up to needing new glasses or mistaking a leaf on the breeze.

This is harder to do when the birds are inside a building, a room, and one where the birds are at a distance that is greater than the four walls of the room would allow. Don’t worry. This short text will explain what they are and why there’s no need for alarm.

First, we need to make an apple pie from scratch.

The world is not a 1, it’s a 3. That’s an important fact to remember. Just because I look to the right and see the rough trunk of a shagbark hickory doesn’t mean there’s a tree at all. It means my eyes are focusing rays of light on a set of receptor and processing organs that come back from the brain as “tree”. If I was blind, the tree wouldn’t exist in the same way. Reality is a product of senses receiving stimulus and cognitive functions interpreting it.

Baysiean statistics is a dangerous field for a non-expert. I’m almost without a doubt conceiving of it wrongly, but nevermind. The fundamental rule of Baysiean statistics is that the prior predicts the posterior. What you, or I, or anyone, comes into a situation with affects the outcome of that situation. If the last time I pushed a button I got a reward, I’m primed by my prior to expect a reward in the (situational) posterior. There are arguments regarding if a prior affects the actual posterior, or just the expected posterior.

Again, nevermind. I have seen a blackbird in the past. My prior has primed reality to present to me a blackbird. This is true even in situations where that wouldn’t make sense, such as if I’m seated in a bathroom. Why though?

Psychological states and impairments can mess with  expectations in a particular situation. People who have seen a mylar balloon flying overhead, who are primed by science fiction and conspiracy theories, will see Venus brightly glowing in the sky and think “alien”. The religious will see miracles in the mundane. There aren’t any teenagers in the Midwestern USA who see the outline of Vishnu in the bark of a tree.

Under standard conditions, where brain chemistry, anatomy, and nature is operating at the mean, no one is seeing black feathers and darting shapes. If stress, anxiety, trauma, or even just a deranged prior exist, the posterior is primed to color outside the lines.

This simple little thing has done more for the terror than I think even the major tranquilizers and sedatives have. To be sure it does not replace those important chemicals. I do find that I’m less likely to flee a situation at a sprint and hide in the wood until the Minotaur is passed. There’s value in that.

Wilfully Naive

On the September twenty fifth, twenty twenty five broadcast of Morning Edition on NPR listeners were once more reminded that the art world is full of those who are at best wilfully naive and at worst dealers in child sexual abuse material or out right pedophiles. I’m talking of course about the interview with Sally Mann. You’re forgiven if you had someone else in mind, there’s certainly enough of them.

To be clear, NPR should absolutely know that a professional photographer publishing and displaying nude (genital inclusive) photographic prints of their own children is detestable.

The argument is the old saw that it’s “art” and anyone offended is ignorant. They even trot out their favorite horse that even Jesus is depicted nude in centuries worth of religious art. Well, let me know when you have a photo of a pre-pubescent Jesus, full frontal nude. Until then keep your sophistry to yourself.

There’s a great many who will defend nearly anything in the name of art. Those who object are ignorant and pedestrian, perverting artistic achievements with their own skewed view. How many times can someone say that anyone seeing something sexual in this or that photo is demented and still believe it? Water drawn up from a bottomless well. Backed into a corner some will eventually admit “it’s complicated”.

It’s not though. We don’t need to talk about intentions, consent, exploitation, the artistic worth of this or that. None of that needs any consideration at all. This is the test. If you have a photo on your gallery wall, that would send a random creep to jail were it to be found on his hard drive, it’s child sexual abuse material. Simple.

The only people who can say it’s not, and mean it, are either clinging to that to avoid recognizing what they are, or those eternally sheltered souls with no experience in the horrors of the real world. Maybe the images are in no way inherently sexual. Maybe there’s consent now that the child has reached the age of majority. Maybe no one’s been arrested, and maybe no one, even I, claim the artist intended to produce child sexual abuse material.

Who though, is seeking out this “art”? Only the critically minded appreciators of fine art? Or will it be admitted that regardless of intent a “product” has been produced that criminal abusers will seek out? Fuck Sally Mann, and fuck NPR for giving her a few minutes behind the microphone.