I went to see Wolf Parade last night. Great show. Fantastic. (Let me get that out of the way before I start complaining.) But Wolf Parade's drummer needs a friking metronome. Very nearly every song was revved up into a short little diddy of a punk anthem. Perhaps the band simply wanted to get off the stage asap, but whatever the case, slow the damn songs down.
The title of this post is more in reference to one of the evening's two openers, Frog Eyes, than Wolf Parade. I realized something while standing in the crowd, watching their front man gyrate, mumble incoherently, and frenetically scratch his guitar (which sounded like Tom Morello after an acid binge): Indy rock is all about the song writing. More so than any genre I've lived through, the ascent to the pedestal of cool in Indy rock depends largely on well written songs. The contrast last night was stark. Wolf Parade had them in spades, Frog Eyes had jack. I found myself wondering how the Frog Eyes front man had managed to convince someone to let him bring his private bathroom mirror "I am rockstar" fantasy out for all the world to see. I can hardly imagine something less interesting. Mercifully, it was at least a bit comical.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
To be Young and Hip
I recently responded to a job posting seeking "hip alternative waitstaff." This was my reply:
---
Hello,
I am responding to your ad for hip alternative waitstaff. Not knowing what sort of hipness litmus test you have in mind, I am at a loss as to what to include (I mean, many of us are hip in different ways). But suffice it to say, I am pretty hip. I like hip music. I wear hip clothes (in a variety of styles) and I really don't care about being hip (ultimately, the most important quality, to some at least). All that aside, I imagine that in asking for hip alternative types you were partly trying to draw in those who are easygoing, which I am, but even better, I am also hardworking (I've been promoted at both of the full-time jobs I have held).
Incidentally, should you like any advice in putting together a hip wine list I've got the knowledge to do it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Evan Trimble
---
As you may have guessed, I am still looking for a job. I've also expanded my field of possible jobs to include most anything wine related that pays half decently (or has benefits). We'll see what sort of response my hip potential employer gives me. I'm still primarily focused on looking for work with a wine distribution or import company, but have yet to find any. There's still one dream company (relative to Portland) that I haven't jumped through all the hoops with yet (I'm trying get one of the owners on the phone to follow up on the cover letter and resume I posted to him late last week), but at this point I am cold-calling every distribution and import company based in Portland (or with Portland offices) that I can find. Cold-calling sucks at first, but I'm getting better at it and it's becoming sort of fun. Today I got one invitation to go visit a little import and distribution company and chat with the owner and see his operation. He couldn't offer me a job as there was none available (it's a very small outfit) but it should be interesting and could lead to something in the future.
Hope all are well.
Love Ev
---
Hello,
I am responding to your ad for hip alternative waitstaff. Not knowing what sort of hipness litmus test you have in mind, I am at a loss as to what to include (I mean, many of us are hip in different ways). But suffice it to say, I am pretty hip. I like hip music. I wear hip clothes (in a variety of styles) and I really don't care about being hip (ultimately, the most important quality, to some at least). All that aside, I imagine that in asking for hip alternative types you were partly trying to draw in those who are easygoing, which I am, but even better, I am also hardworking (I've been promoted at both of the full-time jobs I have held).
Incidentally, should you like any advice in putting together a hip wine list I've got the knowledge to do it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Evan Trimble
---
As you may have guessed, I am still looking for a job. I've also expanded my field of possible jobs to include most anything wine related that pays half decently (or has benefits). We'll see what sort of response my hip potential employer gives me. I'm still primarily focused on looking for work with a wine distribution or import company, but have yet to find any. There's still one dream company (relative to Portland) that I haven't jumped through all the hoops with yet (I'm trying get one of the owners on the phone to follow up on the cover letter and resume I posted to him late last week), but at this point I am cold-calling every distribution and import company based in Portland (or with Portland offices) that I can find. Cold-calling sucks at first, but I'm getting better at it and it's becoming sort of fun. Today I got one invitation to go visit a little import and distribution company and chat with the owner and see his operation. He couldn't offer me a job as there was none available (it's a very small outfit) but it should be interesting and could lead to something in the future.
Hope all are well.
Love Ev
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
the internet's pretty nifty, eh
[Quoted in full from a review of the Spice Girls' "Spice" on Amazon.co.uk; I've italicised some highlights, this deserves publication in a peer reviewed journal, perhaps unfortunately.]
----
***** What you really really want, 19 Sep 2005
Reviewer: "kpalowe" - See all my reviews
The whole Spice Girls concept was one of the most genius creations in pop music history, and the group's immense global success serves to confirm this. Five singing/dancing women, each with their own character, nickname, and ensuing persona, with the 'Girl Power!' slogan to appeal to young girls and a sex appeal for.... well - all men. They were heavily criticised for being emblematic of all that was wrong with pop music and their slogan was accused of being ,inauthentic due to the group's overtly sexual image (see the video to 'Say You'll Be There', for a palpable example). However, this really highlighted some critic's ignorance of post-feminist theory and literature, rather than an accurate deliberation of the group's implications.
Besides, 'Spice' is a tremendous pop album that regenerated the sense of fun that pop had lost some years previously, and this was further punctuated by the group's flamboyance. In fact, many pop albums that have been produced since seem to exemplify qualities and influences that can be identified on 'Spice'. Some people will never be convinced that any one of the individual members possessed even the slightest trace of artistic merit. However, most seem to overlook the fact that the Spice Girls only delivered the final artefact and that there was a whole team of producers and artists involved with the Spice Girls concept. Most crucial was two excellent song-writing duos: Stannard/Rowe and Watkins/Wilson (the former being arguably superior to the latter). The song-writing and the arrangements of the songs thereof was supreme, and there are a variety of pop influences that could be discussed, i.e., r 'n' b ('Say You'll Be There', 'Naked'), funk ('Something Kinda Funny'), gospel ('Mama'), even a bit of jazz ('If You Can't Dance').
The album opens with the sound of running footsteps and laughter before Mel B's attention-grabbing 'Well!!!' just before 'Wannabe' kicks in. Once the familiar (i.e., often used) I-bIII-IV-bVII riff begins Mel B and Geri exchange that famous 'I'll tell you what I want what I really really want, - so tell me what you want what you really really want', and the Spice Girl 'précis' can be identified within the first eight seconds. Certainly, there is no way you are not going to listen! The 'girl on top' hypothesis is humorously presented with lines such as 'don't go wasting my precious time', 'What d'ya think about that?', 'are you for real?', and 'If you really bug me then I'll say good bye', and the deliberately catchy chorus summarises their message lyrically. Towards the end of the song each member is pithily introduced. It is a great introduction to the album, and arguably Richard Stannard and Matt Rowe (with the Spice Girls) coined one of the greatest singles in pop history; one that was certainly much-needed at the time. The video is great too, with the girls gate-crashing an aristocratic party, and causing general (but in no way violent - the light-hearted sense of fun prevails) destruction. It does appear as if someone was attempting to convey some kind of message somewhere - for the girls pass a tramp in the street before they enter the building, and on leaving jump on a bus. However, there is no sense that they are showing any contempt for the people at the upper-class party. Perhaps the video is more of an observation on our excessively hierarchical society, rather than an definite protest. When the group jump on the bus, they beacon us to follow them...... and a large number of people did just that.
The r 'n' b enthused hit single 'Say You'll Be There' has a very strong melody and is perfectly arranged, including a wonderful harmonica solo, with some pretty fine vocal work from Mel C towards the end as well. Other hit singles '2 Become 1' (Christmas UK number 1 1996), 'Mama', and 'Who Do You Think You Are?' (Comic Relief 1997) will be familiar to most. 'Love Thing' also has a great melody, which exploits the blues influence upon pop in general, with use of flattened seventh, augmented ninths etc. A lot of the vocal arrangement is very advanced, balancing textures, the members various vocal ranges, and solos vs. harmony, vs. parallel octaves (the type of vocal arrangement that had previously been an attractive quality of such groups as TLC)to perfection, and 'Something Kinda Funny' is a case in point. Lyrically, the songs are either about typical pop song subjects (i.e., the joys, trials and tribulations of relationships), the group's 'Girl Power!' message, or a juxtaposition of the two. There are a few exceptions i.e., 'Mama' and 'Naked' (perhaps 'Mama' isn't exactly a high point on the album.... but you can't win 'em all). Following the introductory nature of 'Wannabe', 'If You Can't Dance' is something of a summary, particularly of their 'Girl Power!' statement, with the persistently repeated line 'If you can't dance to this you can't do nothing for me baby!'
Overall, 'Spice' is an impeccably well-balanced pop album with an amiable allure. Whatever one might think of the five individuals, the Spice Girl concept was a work of ingenuity. In years to come, it should become more and more patent that the repercussions of 'Spice' on popular music were far greater than was first evident, and the album holds a significant place in the history of pop music. For now, we can sneakily put the album in our personal stereos when no one is looking, keep the volume at a reasonable level, bop along, and hope that no one asks what we're listening to!
-----
From the next review (because I couldn't resist):
"Following up an album which many people consider to be not only the best musical experiment since a child called Mozart though he'd give the family piano a go, but the best album ever recorded, is not an easy task, but somehow, SOMEHOW, they topped it."
I love the internet. Amish people don't know where it's at. Technology is cool. Freakin' awesome. My tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the above review deserves publication in a peer reviewed journal is partly serious; I've seen worse (save the elementary grammar mistakes) in many an academic article. Perhaps I should start a peer reviewed journal centered on pop culture.
----
***** What you really really want, 19 Sep 2005
Reviewer: "kpalowe" - See all my reviews
The whole Spice Girls concept was one of the most genius creations in pop music history, and the group's immense global success serves to confirm this. Five singing/dancing women, each with their own character, nickname, and ensuing persona, with the 'Girl Power!' slogan to appeal to young girls and a sex appeal for.... well - all men. They were heavily criticised for being emblematic of all that was wrong with pop music and their slogan was accused of being ,inauthentic due to the group's overtly sexual image (see the video to 'Say You'll Be There', for a palpable example). However, this really highlighted some critic's ignorance of post-feminist theory and literature, rather than an accurate deliberation of the group's implications.
Besides, 'Spice' is a tremendous pop album that regenerated the sense of fun that pop had lost some years previously, and this was further punctuated by the group's flamboyance. In fact, many pop albums that have been produced since seem to exemplify qualities and influences that can be identified on 'Spice'. Some people will never be convinced that any one of the individual members possessed even the slightest trace of artistic merit. However, most seem to overlook the fact that the Spice Girls only delivered the final artefact and that there was a whole team of producers and artists involved with the Spice Girls concept. Most crucial was two excellent song-writing duos: Stannard/Rowe and Watkins/Wilson (the former being arguably superior to the latter). The song-writing and the arrangements of the songs thereof was supreme, and there are a variety of pop influences that could be discussed, i.e., r 'n' b ('Say You'll Be There', 'Naked'), funk ('Something Kinda Funny'), gospel ('Mama'), even a bit of jazz ('If You Can't Dance').
The album opens with the sound of running footsteps and laughter before Mel B's attention-grabbing 'Well!!!' just before 'Wannabe' kicks in. Once the familiar (i.e., often used) I-bIII-IV-bVII riff begins Mel B and Geri exchange that famous 'I'll tell you what I want what I really really want, - so tell me what you want what you really really want', and the Spice Girl 'précis' can be identified within the first eight seconds. Certainly, there is no way you are not going to listen! The 'girl on top' hypothesis is humorously presented with lines such as 'don't go wasting my precious time', 'What d'ya think about that?', 'are you for real?', and 'If you really bug me then I'll say good bye', and the deliberately catchy chorus summarises their message lyrically. Towards the end of the song each member is pithily introduced. It is a great introduction to the album, and arguably Richard Stannard and Matt Rowe (with the Spice Girls) coined one of the greatest singles in pop history; one that was certainly much-needed at the time. The video is great too, with the girls gate-crashing an aristocratic party, and causing general (but in no way violent - the light-hearted sense of fun prevails) destruction. It does appear as if someone was attempting to convey some kind of message somewhere - for the girls pass a tramp in the street before they enter the building, and on leaving jump on a bus. However, there is no sense that they are showing any contempt for the people at the upper-class party. Perhaps the video is more of an observation on our excessively hierarchical society, rather than an definite protest. When the group jump on the bus, they beacon us to follow them...... and a large number of people did just that.
The r 'n' b enthused hit single 'Say You'll Be There' has a very strong melody and is perfectly arranged, including a wonderful harmonica solo, with some pretty fine vocal work from Mel C towards the end as well. Other hit singles '2 Become 1' (Christmas UK number 1 1996), 'Mama', and 'Who Do You Think You Are?' (Comic Relief 1997) will be familiar to most. 'Love Thing' also has a great melody, which exploits the blues influence upon pop in general, with use of flattened seventh, augmented ninths etc. A lot of the vocal arrangement is very advanced, balancing textures, the members various vocal ranges, and solos vs. harmony, vs. parallel octaves (the type of vocal arrangement that had previously been an attractive quality of such groups as TLC)to perfection, and 'Something Kinda Funny' is a case in point. Lyrically, the songs are either about typical pop song subjects (i.e., the joys, trials and tribulations of relationships), the group's 'Girl Power!' message, or a juxtaposition of the two. There are a few exceptions i.e., 'Mama' and 'Naked' (perhaps 'Mama' isn't exactly a high point on the album.... but you can't win 'em all). Following the introductory nature of 'Wannabe', 'If You Can't Dance' is something of a summary, particularly of their 'Girl Power!' statement, with the persistently repeated line 'If you can't dance to this you can't do nothing for me baby!'
Overall, 'Spice' is an impeccably well-balanced pop album with an amiable allure. Whatever one might think of the five individuals, the Spice Girl concept was a work of ingenuity. In years to come, it should become more and more patent that the repercussions of 'Spice' on popular music were far greater than was first evident, and the album holds a significant place in the history of pop music. For now, we can sneakily put the album in our personal stereos when no one is looking, keep the volume at a reasonable level, bop along, and hope that no one asks what we're listening to!
-----
From the next review (because I couldn't resist):
"Following up an album which many people consider to be not only the best musical experiment since a child called Mozart though he'd give the family piano a go, but the best album ever recorded, is not an easy task, but somehow, SOMEHOW, they topped it."
I love the internet. Amish people don't know where it's at. Technology is cool. Freakin' awesome. My tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the above review deserves publication in a peer reviewed journal is partly serious; I've seen worse (save the elementary grammar mistakes) in many an academic article. Perhaps I should start a peer reviewed journal centered on pop culture.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Never Forget:
“Do or do not... there is no try.”
“You will find only what you bring in.”
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
“Named must your fear be before banish it you can.”
"For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is."
:)
“You will find only what you bring in.”
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
“Named must your fear be before banish it you can.”
"For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is."
:)
Monday, April 03, 2006
No more, please
Or, "Why I don't think I'll be joining the academy"
What if I one day wrote sentences like the following:
"The madeleine section mediates between the vertical immobility of an instantaneous revelation and the horizontal extensiveness of an incipient narration."
I don't know how I'd sleep at night. I might just as well become a drug mule for a pharmaceutical company. I'll admit, I've taken this out of context, but even within the paragraph or the chapter in which it occurs, this sentence is pretty bad. In context, what he means by vertical and horizontal is relatively clear to anyone who has read Saussure or Jakobson (and that is a fair assumption for his audience), but the rest of it verges on drivel, in my humble opinion.
Anyways, I'm done with the body of my essay (I don't call it a thesis anymore) and am still working through my intro and conclusion. I don't know if I can stand to read my chapters again. I will, but not for another few days at least.
Love Ev
What if I one day wrote sentences like the following:
"The madeleine section mediates between the vertical immobility of an instantaneous revelation and the horizontal extensiveness of an incipient narration."
I don't know how I'd sleep at night. I might just as well become a drug mule for a pharmaceutical company. I'll admit, I've taken this out of context, but even within the paragraph or the chapter in which it occurs, this sentence is pretty bad. In context, what he means by vertical and horizontal is relatively clear to anyone who has read Saussure or Jakobson (and that is a fair assumption for his audience), but the rest of it verges on drivel, in my humble opinion.
Anyways, I'm done with the body of my essay (I don't call it a thesis anymore) and am still working through my intro and conclusion. I don't know if I can stand to read my chapters again. I will, but not for another few days at least.
Love Ev
Friday, March 24, 2006
morning happening
There's something wonderful about the confluence of maintream pop culture and over-edified acadmedic intellectualism that I represent right now. I'm working at the coffee shop with my laptop on the counter. Eve's "Let me blow ya mind" is playing on the stereo, I can't help but bob my head and shake my tush, even if it is stuck on a chair as I read Proust et les signes (Gilles Deleuze). I'm working on my introduction, and now I'm singing along to Phife, "You see you, your career is done like Johnny Carson's . . . "
Hope y'all are having a good day.
Hope y'all are having a good day.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Morning peregrinations
"The job facing the cultural intellectual is therefore not accept the politics of identity as given, but to show how all representations are constructed, for what purpose, by whom, and with what components. . . . Every society and official tradition defends itself against interferences with its sanctioned narratives; over time, these acquire an almost theological status, with founding heroes, cherished ideas and values, national allegories having an estimable effect in cultural and political life."
—Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism
[cited by Cyraina Johson-Roullier in the epigraph to her book Reading on the Edge: Exiles, modernities, and cultural transformation in Proust, Joyce, and Baldwin]
—Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism
[cited by Cyraina Johson-Roullier in the epigraph to her book Reading on the Edge: Exiles, modernities, and cultural transformation in Proust, Joyce, and Baldwin]
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
The sun is shining
In my mind. I slept well last night and am heading into the home stretch before the playoffs. I'll be handing in a draft this upcoming Monday. After that, it's a whole lot of finessing and tweaking, but no more big chunks of writing. I've taken to listening to Daft Punk, Basement Jax and the like while editing my chapters. This may have to be changed as I get to more substantive edits, but for now it's like a party on my keyboard. I combined my chapters into one document for the first time last night: 57 pages. Actually, I spoke too soon about the no more big chunks of writing part, I still have an intro and conclusion to write which will probably bring my page total up 80 or so pages. I want every sentence to be to the point. I want a concise but elegant argument. Editing over the next month will probably (hopefully) bring me down to 65–70 pages, which would make me happy. While my project could easily be turned into a book, I don't think the issues I've managed to address warrant much more than 65 pages. In some instances I've included extra examples of identical or similar phenomena, which well good for argument's sake, create unneccesary repetition. I will probably relegate many of those to footnotes. Anyways, it goes well is the point. I also got a presentation out of the way yesterday which went very well, and got my Logic mid-term back, which I came oh so close to aceing. Hopefully that means I won't have to spend endless hours on natural deduction anymore. It seems like most of the course from here on out is an expansion of the ground we've already established. Yesterday we added the backwards "E" ("there exists") and the upside down "A" ("for every"). Such fun.
Love Ev
Love Ev
Saturday, March 18, 2006
"Et en effet les femmes qu'on n'aime plus et qu'on rencontre après des années, n'y a-t-il pas entre elles et vous la mort, tout aussi bien que si elles n'étaient plus de ce monde, puisque le fait que notre amour n'existe plus fait de celles qu'elles étaient alors, ou de celui que nous étions, des morts?"
["And in effect the women whom we no longer love and who we encounter years later, is there not, between them and you, death, just as if they were not of this world anymore, since the fact that our love exists no more makes of those who they were, or of them who we were, dead?"]
["And in effect the women whom we no longer love and who we encounter years later, is there not, between them and you, death, just as if they were not of this world anymore, since the fact that our love exists no more makes of those who they were, or of them who we were, dead?"]
Friday, March 17, 2006
I hate you thesis
Such bombast is rarely true. For example, I don't ?????? as I find it hard to hate anyone or anything I don't personally know. If I were to say about someone I know, "I hate you" (I haven't done so since I was wee tyke), it would be just as much an expression of my affection for that person as my displeasure. Why? Because in that context, "I hate you" would likely be a reaction to an offense I felt was caused by someone I cared about. For people I don't know, in whom I have nothing invested, hate isn't worth the effort. So, I don't really hate my thesis (indeed, I've had a lot of fun working on it today), but it is St. Patrick's day and I am still working on it, so, "I hate you thesis." I should be out at a bar smugly making derisive comments about green beer while I sip my creamy nitro pumped Irish brew, drinking Irish car bombs, taking my yearly oppurtunity to do the frat-boy thing and say "kiss me 'cause I'm Irish". Of course, I'm not really Irish, except by adoption, but I think my Scottish and Welsh heritage gives me due claim to patriotic revelry on this day of Irish pride. You see, as a descendant of two parts of the subjugated Celts, I feel a kindred link to my Irish brethren, and the literary critic in me might say that my positive presence implies my absent brother, but then I might get kicked out of the bar, so I'll just have a few shots of Redbreast and order another pint of Kilkenny. Moreover, we Scots and Welshman have nary a holiday to call our own. There is the undercelebrated Robbie Burns day (January 25th) for the Scots among us, but few of us actually like Haggis, and too many people don't enjoy whiskey.
All I have to console me is my pathetic can of Rockstar and a cold burrito. I hate you thesis.
(Oh, and I have Cat Power, but I should probably stop listening to it as it brings me to tears.)
All I have to console me is my pathetic can of Rockstar and a cold burrito. I hate you thesis.
(Oh, and I have Cat Power, but I should probably stop listening to it as it brings me to tears.)
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
:)
I love natural deduction. Like a nice challenging crossword in a Sunday afternoon, it brings a certain playful pleasure and allows me to ignore the rest of the world for a little bit (my thesis).
Appalled
I'm generally not appalled very often. Perhaps I should be. So much of what passes for democracy and the defense of liberty in this country is appalling, but it doesn't surprise me and so I forget to feel appalled. Rarely do I every find music appallingly offensive. But yesterday, while playing pool, some adolescent freshman put on the song I Like It When the Strippers Cry by the Bloodhound Gang. I somehow missed the Bloodhound Gang growing up, perhaps because I was only about 12 when they made it big. My god. In other appalling news, I continue to unearth mounds of publish drivel under the guise of literary criticism. I can only hope that I am not adding to the pile.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Chapter 3 begins
"To understand a metaphor is by its very nature to decide whether to join the metaphorist or reject him, and that is simultaneously to decide either to be shaped in the shape his metaphor require or to resist." (Booth, Wayne C. "Metaphor as Rhetoric" in On Metaphor ed. Sheldon Sacks. 63)
Monday, February 27, 2006
please help
I want to sleep. But no, because:
I can’t stop
The way I feel
Things you do
Don’t seem real
Tell you what I got in mind
’cause we’re runnin’ out of time
Won’t you ever set me free?
She drives me crazy
Like no one else
She drives me crazy
And I can’t help myself
I can’t get
Any rest
People say
I’m obsessed
She drives me crazy
Like no one else
She drives me crazy
And I can’t help myself
[to my thesis]
I can’t stop
The way I feel
Things you do
Don’t seem real
Tell you what I got in mind
’cause we’re runnin’ out of time
Won’t you ever set me free?
She drives me crazy
Like no one else
She drives me crazy
And I can’t help myself
I can’t get
Any rest
People say
I’m obsessed
She drives me crazy
Like no one else
She drives me crazy
And I can’t help myself
[to my thesis]
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Mr. Smith
"...They were gradually more and more extended, and were divided into many inferior chapters, till at last the doctrine of spirits, of which so little can be known, came to take up as much room in the system of philosophy as the doctrine of bodies, of which so much can be known. The doctrines concerning those two subjects were considered as making two distinct sciences. What are called Metaphysics or Pneumatics were set in opposition to Physics, and were cultivated not only as the more sublime, but, for the purposes of a particular profession, as the more useful science of the two. The proper subject of experiment and observation, a subject in which a careful attention is capable of making so many useful discoveries, was almost entirely neglected. The subject in which, after a few very simple and almost obvious truths, the most careful attention can discover nothing but obscurity and uncertainty, and can consequently produce nothing but subtleties and sophisms, was greatly cultivated.
When those two sciences had thus been set in opposition to one another, the comparison between them naturally gave birth to a third, to what was called Ontology, or the science which treated of the qualities and attributes which were common to both the subjects of the other two sciences. But if subtleties and sophisms composed the greater part of the Metaphysics or Pneumatics of the schools, they composed the whole of this cobweb science of Ontology, which was likewise sometimes called Metaphysics."
[Ev is finishing a chapter and has no time for comment. Refrain from asking him how he came upon a passage of Adam Smith. There is a good reason, but he needs to get back to work. Love "ev".]
When those two sciences had thus been set in opposition to one another, the comparison between them naturally gave birth to a third, to what was called Ontology, or the science which treated of the qualities and attributes which were common to both the subjects of the other two sciences. But if subtleties and sophisms composed the greater part of the Metaphysics or Pneumatics of the schools, they composed the whole of this cobweb science of Ontology, which was likewise sometimes called Metaphysics."
[Ev is finishing a chapter and has no time for comment. Refrain from asking him how he came upon a passage of Adam Smith. There is a good reason, but he needs to get back to work. Love "ev".]
Saturday, February 18, 2006
NIN does Derrida
I'm reading about Derrida and listening to NIN's "Hurt." It's been a while since I've listened to Trent. After five Zeppelin filled days I decided it was time for a change, and when I failed to find my Tool (apparently I erased the files accidentally), I went for NIN instead. Doesn't do much for making me happier but somewhere in the catharsis there is some joy.
The reason I'm writing is really just to tell you that Derrida and NIN, specifically "Structure, Sign, and Play" and "Hurt," go very well together. Before settling down to read Limited Inc., I decided to head over to Wikipedia to see what the over-obssessed wiki nerds had to say about a man who is regarded alternately as an intellectual luminary of the 20th century, or a great charlatan who managed to fool pompous comparative lit profs in universities across the US. (It's often said that Derrida never received widespread recognition within the French academy, which is partly true, but he did hold a teaching post at L'École Normal Supérieure, colloquially referred to as "Normale," which is the French equivalent of Harvard times ten.) Appropriately, the Wikipedia article has a big red flag at the top saying that the factual content of the article is disputed. Anyways, I was reading this quote from "Structure, Sign, and Play" when a particularly painful part of "Hurt" came up:
the entire history of the concept of structure, before the rupture of which we are speaking, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of centre for centre, as a linked chain of determinations of the centre. Successively, and in a regulated fashion, the centre receives different forms or names. The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix [...] is the determination of Being as presence in all senses of this word. It could be shown that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the centre have always designated an invariable presence - eidos, archē, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) alētheia, transcendentality, consciousness, God, man, and so forth." ("Structure, Sign and Play" in Writing and Difference, p. 353.)
The particular connection had something to do with Derrida's idea of shifting centres, which somehow described to me my particular experience of "Hurt" at that point. Anyways, back to my reading.
Love Ev
The reason I'm writing is really just to tell you that Derrida and NIN, specifically "Structure, Sign, and Play" and "Hurt," go very well together. Before settling down to read Limited Inc., I decided to head over to Wikipedia to see what the over-obssessed wiki nerds had to say about a man who is regarded alternately as an intellectual luminary of the 20th century, or a great charlatan who managed to fool pompous comparative lit profs in universities across the US. (It's often said that Derrida never received widespread recognition within the French academy, which is partly true, but he did hold a teaching post at L'École Normal Supérieure, colloquially referred to as "Normale," which is the French equivalent of Harvard times ten.) Appropriately, the Wikipedia article has a big red flag at the top saying that the factual content of the article is disputed. Anyways, I was reading this quote from "Structure, Sign, and Play" when a particularly painful part of "Hurt" came up:
the entire history of the concept of structure, before the rupture of which we are speaking, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of centre for centre, as a linked chain of determinations of the centre. Successively, and in a regulated fashion, the centre receives different forms or names. The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix [...] is the determination of Being as presence in all senses of this word. It could be shown that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the centre have always designated an invariable presence - eidos, archē, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) alētheia, transcendentality, consciousness, God, man, and so forth." ("Structure, Sign and Play" in Writing and Difference, p. 353.)
The particular connection had something to do with Derrida's idea of shifting centres, which somehow described to me my particular experience of "Hurt" at that point. Anyways, back to my reading.
Love Ev
Thursday, February 16, 2006
thoughts while rereading
Reading books is overrated. I don't exactly mean that, but I couldn't resist the ?????? bombast of that statement. Reading lots of books is overrated. I'm rereading parts of Swann's Way, the first book of In Search of Lost Time for at least the sixth or seventh time. It just gets better. Proust's introduction is sublime. Sometime ago I wrote something stupid about the sublime being a category academics use to escape their own self–edification, at which they horribly fail. If the adjective 'stupid' doesn't qualify as a negation for you, let me put it this way, "it is not the case that...." Wow, look what logic has done to me. I've begun think about how my natural language (English) sentences could be translated into formal logic. This is both good and bad. Probably good to learn how, I can always be intentionally ambiguous later.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Yahoo!
I am so smart, I am so smart, I am so smar! (Imagine Evan singing this to the tune of Ren and Stimpy's "Happy, Happy, Joy Joy.") I had an epiphanously ephiphanic moment this morning (I did have to consult the OED to sort those two out.) I have devised what I think is a new view of the relationship between metonymy and metaphor in Proust. I'm very excited. It is entirely possible that I'll discover someone else has already said the same thing, but so far I haven't, and I've read many of the proustian luminaries.
??????
Back to work.
Love Ev
??????
Back to work.
Love Ev
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
And there was connectivity.
I have re–emerged from the cave. No, not Mr. Plato's, but my own, self–imposed, cell phone free cave. I've just ordered a Nokia 6102 from Amazon.com. As long as I can navigate the rebate process, I will actually net $75 from the transaction (ignoring the $500 I've just agreed to pay T-mobile over the next year). It's not a particularly swanky phone, but it's not a piece of shit either. Were cost no concern, I might have gotten either a Samsung t809 or a Motorola PEBL. But, as a poor college student, and further as someone who is somewhat uncomfortable with conspicuous consumption, I opted for the Nokia. While pondering the choice—I've been researching phones for about three weeks now—I've frequently asked myself which phone I would buy if money were of no personal concern. The PEBL is one cool little phone. Not as trendy as the RAZR, which, I must sheepishly admit, is a small part of why I like the PEBL more, but much cooler (even apart from that) as it is actually a very well–designed, feature rich, skookum little phone. On the one hand, were I a consumer of greater financial means, I would be inclined to support Motorola for their design achievement, and I might also be inclinde to reward myself for whatever successes I have had. And yet, that money might be put to better use. When talking of cell phones, such questions may almost seem a little excessive as the amount of money involved is so small (to me at least). So how about we change the situation. I have, for many years dreamed, on and off, of owning a BMW M5. It is a beautiful car, and yet sort of practical, by which I mean that it seats more than two people. But I've never been sure that I could actually buy such a car (regardless of my wealth). Why not choose a Honda Civic, or some other car that similarly teems with practicality. I think I might feel like a tool every time I got into my M5. And, if ever I didn't, I fear that I would have lost an important part of who I am. It's not that I have anything against capitalism; market based democracies are the best form of governance we humans have stumbled upon so far. It is instead a of question of my personal priorities, of how I want to allocate my resources, considering all the potential effects of my decisions.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
It was recently suggested to me that I should write about something more personal here. I think my friend, call him almost–dad, has a point. When I began this thing, it included a significant amount of personal thoughts, experiences and musings. I don't think it's entirely lost my personal voice—I write about language, philosophy and politics in a way here that I would never dare in an academic paper—but I've stopped talking about my life. My thesis has something to do with this. I spend most of my time either working on my thesis, thinking about my thesis (those two are not always the same), or irresponsibly relating my thesis to things I never should. Case in point: I was recently having what could certainly be called a heart to heart (intentionally left vague, for this is the interweb), and somehow felt it appropriate to say something like the following: "It's not that I want to make this academic, but I can't help but think about Frankfurt's criticism of "postmodern" privileging of the personal over truth....." The specifics of his argument are not to point here, but what is goes as follows: Frankfurt suggests that it is rather absurd to think that we can say anything meaningful about our own experience—ie. be 'sincere'—if we believe it is impossible to recognize truth in the external (not of our mind) world. In his view, it is much easier to recognize truth and falsity in reality than it is to know oneself. From my recent experience, the man has a point. I need a map to Evan, even just to figure out what I want. (Though my reference to Frankfurt was perhaps germane to the discussion, I still felt a bit odd after it.) I often spend too much time being academic to pay attention to how I feel. This is partly intentional. There are things in my heart I'd rather not feel right now, but it's also a matter of being a senior at ??????. I also exagerate slightly. I have been meditating more recently. Even if I haven't used this to look into the "depths of my heart," (this is why I don't like metaphors sometimes, even in normal discourse, what/where is the "depths of my heart" Am I perhaps manufacturing an experience that I'm supposed to have, one that may not even serve me in any positive way?) I have used it to open my mind, keep myself present, and generally be cheerful about the world.
I got to go eat and get backt o work, but I hope all are well.
Love Ev
PS. Now that I've been listening to both Illmatic and Reasonable Doubt for a solid six months, I feel I can make up my mind: Nas knocked Jay out in the first round.
I got to go eat and get backt o work, but I hope all are well.
Love Ev
PS. Now that I've been listening to both Illmatic and Reasonable Doubt for a solid six months, I feel I can make up my mind: Nas knocked Jay out in the first round.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Metaphors in Philosophy
Until recently, I thought metaphors had little place in philosophy. It's not that I subscribe to a literalist view of metaphor, wherein a metaphor means nothing more than its semantic, propositional content, but that I think metaphors are not satisfyingly truth–verifiable (typically, they are not at all truth-verifiable). To be clear about what I'm talking about: take the phrase (this is an example from some academic's paper): "You are the cream in my coffee." By a literalist view, this sentence is nonsense. The indexical 'you' requires a human referent and humans are not "cream". Simple as that. Now for some more interesting examples, and the reason I'm writing. In a paper entitled "Sex, Breakfast, and Descriptus Interruptus," Kenneth Taylor argues for a crossover view of semantics and pragmatics in which semantic contents (what the words 'mean' irrespective of context) may sometimes be indeterminate without some amount of pragmatic interpretation. Specifically, he suggests that "context-independent ingredients of sentence meaning more or less tightly constrain the to–be–contextually determined values of either suppressed or explicit parameters.” (55) He calls this view 'parametric minimalism.' His point in arguing it is that, though there may be prepropositional pragmatic externalities (instances where semantic meaning must be determined by reference to context), the potential meanings of the utterance are constrained by semantic (ie. context independent) factors. This is important because otherwise we might be able to claim (as Récanati does) that all context is important and we might then be lost in a willy–nilly orgy of free association. Intuitively, I agree with Taylor. However, in order to give his argument a semblance of factual underpining, he suggests that sentences typically set "up a semantic scaffolding which constrains, without determining, [their] own contextual completion.” (53) Metaphor, in the form of 'semantic scaffolding,' is already creeping in, but so far, it's alright. I'm happy to take his 'scaffolding' to be an explanatory description and not an assertion of a determinate proposition. However, he soon goes on to construct some perhaps dodgy metaphors. These metaphors creep in as he tries to account for the semantic parameters that constrain utterance meaning (an utterance being an instance, within a specific context, of a particular sentence.) As he says, “sometimes the to-be-contextually determined parameter is explicitly expressed in the syntax." Examples are explicit indexicals, demonstratives and verb tenses. However, Taylor also claims that the parameters are sometimes suppressed. As he admits, saying where they are hidden is difficult, but, nonetheless, he goes on to give us two juicy metaphors to help locate them: "some unexpressed parameters hide in what we might call the subsyntactic basement [first metaphor] of suppressed verbal argument structure." As an example, Taylor says that the verb 'to rain' “has a lexically specified argument place which is θ–marked THEME and that this argument place take places as values.” (53) This is to say that “the subatomic structure [second metaphor] of the verb ‘to rain’ explicitly marks rainings as a kind of change that places undergo.” (53) Taylor says we have a ‘tacit recognition’ of this, and intuitively, I agree, but I don't really think there is any such 'sub-atomic structure'. I would instead advance the idea that our background knowledge of the verb 'to rain' constrains the "to-be-contextually determined" proposition to such a degree that it may seem that there exist context independent semantic parameters only because, with the verb 'to rain', the background knowledge is widely–shared and very well–established. Admittedly, this does not hold up so well to post-modern indeterminacy, but I'm happy to simply assert it as fact. (I mean, hey, Thomas Jefferson and the US Congress did just that sort of sleight of hand when they asserted the "self–evident" truth of the "unalienable Rights" of man. Similarly, the French National Assembly when they passed the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" in 1789.) Unfortunately, when I argue against Taylor in this way, I undermine such assertions. Clearly, I need to become a philosoper–king.
Back to Taylor: A week ago, I would have taken a much harsher view of Taylor's metaphors. I would have said that they assert no proposition (ie. they are not truth-verifiable), and that they obfuscate more than they explain. However, I am now much more sympathetic, and, I think, for good reason. Let us first remember that the philosophy of language is written in a meta–language (thank you Colin Cherry), and that the phenomena of our object language (in this case English) are apparent to us only to the extent that our meta-language contains identifying words. In other words, we can only talk about things for which we have words. As Cherry says, "metaphors arise because we continually need to stretch the range of words as we accumulate new concepts and abstract relationships." (Signs, Language, and Communication, 74) Thus they are often the first step in identifying and discussing a heretofore unrecognized phenomenon. Taylor's "subsyntactic basement" or "subatomic structure" (I prefer the former) may just be such a case. To his credit (unlike Récanati and his 'Availability Principle') Taylor is careful throughout to make clear that his ideas are merely hypothetical. So yeah, let us embrace the philosophical metaphor (sometimes, and with due reservations).
Back to Taylor: A week ago, I would have taken a much harsher view of Taylor's metaphors. I would have said that they assert no proposition (ie. they are not truth-verifiable), and that they obfuscate more than they explain. However, I am now much more sympathetic, and, I think, for good reason. Let us first remember that the philosophy of language is written in a meta–language (thank you Colin Cherry), and that the phenomena of our object language (in this case English) are apparent to us only to the extent that our meta-language contains identifying words. In other words, we can only talk about things for which we have words. As Cherry says, "metaphors arise because we continually need to stretch the range of words as we accumulate new concepts and abstract relationships." (Signs, Language, and Communication, 74) Thus they are often the first step in identifying and discussing a heretofore unrecognized phenomenon. Taylor's "subsyntactic basement" or "subatomic structure" (I prefer the former) may just be such a case. To his credit (unlike Récanati and his 'Availability Principle') Taylor is careful throughout to make clear that his ideas are merely hypothetical. So yeah, let us embrace the philosophical metaphor (sometimes, and with due reservations).
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Semantics v. Pragmatics
makes a tasty breakfast. "Have you had breakfast?"
Grice & Taylor v. Récanati, with a little bit of Peirce on the side.
more late.
Ev
ps. And if your think meaning is context depedent, well you're right, but what exactly do you mean (non-naturally, of course) by 'meaning,' and in what way is it dependent on context (and what do you mean by 'context').
Grice & Taylor v. Récanati, with a little bit of Peirce on the side.
more late.
Ev
ps. And if your think meaning is context depedent, well you're right, but what exactly do you mean (non-naturally, of course) by 'meaning,' and in what way is it dependent on context (and what do you mean by 'context').
Monday, January 30, 2006
more truth
In the same vein as my last post, where I partially recanted earlier statements that could have been read as supporting 'personal truths' instead of (communal) truth, I'd like to quote from an interview with Stephen Colbert:
Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word. I don't know whether it's a new thing, but it's certainly a current thing, in that it doesn't seem to matter what facts are. It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the president because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?
Posts may become less frequent in the coming weeks as I'm beginning a month long thesis writing intesive tomorrow. With some luck—and a lot of hard work—I will have a first draft finished by the end of February.
Ev
Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word. I don't know whether it's a new thing, but it's certainly a current thing, in that it doesn't seem to matter what facts are. It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the president because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?
Posts may become less frequent in the coming weeks as I'm beginning a month long thesis writing intesive tomorrow. With some luck—and a lot of hard work—I will have a first draft finished by the end of February.
Ev
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
On Idiocy
I'm inclined to backtrack a little from my previous post in which I complained about a writer naming his column "Top Ten Conservative Idiots of the Week". In that post I wrote, "I can certainly agree that much of what they say and do is idiotic, in the sense that their words and deeds reveal a great ignorance to the truth of my values and views, but I don't really think they are incapable of ordinary acts of reasoning. " The part I don't like about that statement is, "a great ignorance to the truth of my values and views." While I may uphold vaguely post-modern views of indeterminacy (or non-existence) in some contexts, this is not the place. I will not accept some form of relative truth, where though I may have "my own truth", I am willing to recognize the 'truth' of the other person's position (I was not, am not, willing to do so, but my statement tended towards that sort of position). We then no longer have truth and our arguments rest on the shaky foundations of mere belief. I still think the title is stupid as, like I said before, its purpose is nothing more than a sort of communal ?????? among like-minded lefties. (Okay, I didn't say that, but now I have—and I did say something expressing a similar idea).
take a guess...
What might I likely post about while writing my thesis? Musings on self, or lack thereof, you say? Why yes.
I'm reading (skimming) a book by Anthony Kerby, Narrative and the Self. Unsurprisingly, Kerby takes the position that the referent of I or me we commonly regard as ourself is nothing more than a narrative construction. Language thus occupies a central position in our lives: "language is viewed not simply as a tool for communicating or mirroring back what we otherwise discover in our reality but is itself an important formative part of that reality, part of its very texture." (2) Or, as Hans-Georg Gadamer, a student of Heidegger's, put it "being that can be understood is language." (2)
Kerby concludes:
Self-narration, I have argued, is what first raises our temporal existence our of the closets of memorial traces and routine and unthematic activity, constituting thereby a self as its implied subject. This self is, then, the implied subject of a narrated history. Stated another way, in order to be we must be as something or someone, and this someone that we take ourselves to be is the character delineated in our personal narratives. (109)
Kerby goes on to resolve the mind-body problem by saying there is no such thing as mind. I haven't read that part, but I'm guessing that he'll argue that, though we certainly have a physical organ we call 'mind'—a part of our body—it does not constitute "me" (or "I", "you", [as a matter of fact, I've just 'constituted' 'you' by including you in my narrative, and 'you' are now probably split between some sense of identification with the 2nd person pronoun that you've just read, and with the implied subject ('I') of my authorial voice, with which you typically identify to some extent when reading narratives. or not.]). What creates "me" is nothing more than the narration of experience by consciousness.
Okay, here's what Kerby says:
"The self is essentially a meaning construct deriving from language and conversation generally, where language must be seen as essentially "material," that is, as an extention of the sphere of activity of the human body. On the other hand, the human body is alive with expression, with signification. Such a body of gestures we call a person [his emphasis]. It would be artificial (or at best hypothetical) to introduce into this unity a strict substantial division of body and mind, or body and self. Accordingly, I have defined subjectivity as the possibility of expression, but this is not to make of subjectivity some sort of res cogitas or thinking power. Subjectivity is nothing but an honorary appellation we give to a being that has the expressive-linguistic capabilities commonly found in persons. (112)
hmmm.
I'm reading (skimming) a book by Anthony Kerby, Narrative and the Self. Unsurprisingly, Kerby takes the position that the referent of I or me we commonly regard as ourself is nothing more than a narrative construction. Language thus occupies a central position in our lives: "language is viewed not simply as a tool for communicating or mirroring back what we otherwise discover in our reality but is itself an important formative part of that reality, part of its very texture." (2) Or, as Hans-Georg Gadamer, a student of Heidegger's, put it "being that can be understood is language." (2)
Kerby concludes:
Self-narration, I have argued, is what first raises our temporal existence our of the closets of memorial traces and routine and unthematic activity, constituting thereby a self as its implied subject. This self is, then, the implied subject of a narrated history. Stated another way, in order to be we must be as something or someone, and this someone that we take ourselves to be is the character delineated in our personal narratives. (109)
Kerby goes on to resolve the mind-body problem by saying there is no such thing as mind. I haven't read that part, but I'm guessing that he'll argue that, though we certainly have a physical organ we call 'mind'—a part of our body—it does not constitute "me" (or "I", "you", [as a matter of fact, I've just 'constituted' 'you' by including you in my narrative, and 'you' are now probably split between some sense of identification with the 2nd person pronoun that you've just read, and with the implied subject ('I') of my authorial voice, with which you typically identify to some extent when reading narratives. or not.]). What creates "me" is nothing more than the narration of experience by consciousness.
Okay, here's what Kerby says:
"The self is essentially a meaning construct deriving from language and conversation generally, where language must be seen as essentially "material," that is, as an extention of the sphere of activity of the human body. On the other hand, the human body is alive with expression, with signification. Such a body of gestures we call a person [his emphasis]. It would be artificial (or at best hypothetical) to introduce into this unity a strict substantial division of body and mind, or body and self. Accordingly, I have defined subjectivity as the possibility of expression, but this is not to make of subjectivity some sort of res cogitas or thinking power. Subjectivity is nothing but an honorary appellation we give to a being that has the expressive-linguistic capabilities commonly found in persons. (112)
hmmm.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Meaning
" 'Meaning' is a harlot among words; it is a temptress who can seduce the writer or speaker from the path of intellectual chastity. There are many like her. Our language is filled with such words of easy virtue; words like 'true,' 'value,' 'instinct,' 'entity.' These are everyday words, and their ambiguity is such that high–sounding statements may easily be made, having little content.'
Why don't people write like this anymore?
"...most words do not stand in such unique relationship with simple things...,nouns such as 'democracy,' 'civilization,' 'education,' have different significance to different conditions and classes of men; nouns like 'freedom' and 'happiness' are interpreted differently by almost every individual. Indeed, with continued use a good many words have lost their significance and no longer act as symbols of specific things, or even of specific ideas. Some have become verbal emortive stimulants, arousing passion without reason, bemusing or stiffening the hearer into attitudes. Words such as 'Fascist,' 'Communist,' 'nigger,' 'bitch,' " and I might add 'idiot,' "are bandied aboutas mere terms of abuse, without thought to their formal significance."
Frankfurt might refer to the latter as 'bullshit,' the use of words without regard for the truth, though instances of such words may often lack an 'intent to deceive'.
The above two quotes are from the chapter "On Signs, Language and Communication" in Colin Cherry's book On Human Communication (MIT, 1966) that I am reading for my Thinking through literature class.
side-note: There's been much excitement of late surrounding the possibility that telecommunications companies may some day introduce tiered internet speeds for content providers. This could lead to, for example, finding yourself more inclined to use MSN as a search engine than Google because Microsoft has ponied up for faster service. Opponents of such a possibility are lobbying the American Congress to add a 'network neutrality' clause into the soon-to-be revamped Telecommunications act. AT&T and Bell, in particular, have responded that they need to introduce price discrimination in order to pay for network upgrades. It seems to me that there are two things that haven't been much talked about. We don't really have 'network neutrality' at present. Sure, big companies with big servers and good connections can provide content at roughly equivalent speeds—and this does create a situation where the merit of provided content is largely determinant of traffic, which is good—but if I put up my own widgets for sale site and, for lack of capital, can only serve it with a crappy little provider, even if I make spendiflerous widgets, I shall be limited in the amount of traffic I can receive. In fact, my web-site shall most surely go off-line at some point if the traffic gets too high and I have not ponied up some more cash. Second, could the telecommunication companies not return to charging end-users a network traffic rate? Or how about such a rate for content-providers? Indeed, I think such rates exist. AT&T and Bell have simply dug themselves a hole, probably by offering companies like Google and Yahoo far too much bandwidth for too little money, and probably failing to anticipate increases in bandwidth usage as more and more of us download videos and music. (The last sentence is entirely conjecture.)
Why don't people write like this anymore?
"...most words do not stand in such unique relationship with simple things...,nouns such as 'democracy,' 'civilization,' 'education,' have different significance to different conditions and classes of men; nouns like 'freedom' and 'happiness' are interpreted differently by almost every individual. Indeed, with continued use a good many words have lost their significance and no longer act as symbols of specific things, or even of specific ideas. Some have become verbal emortive stimulants, arousing passion without reason, bemusing or stiffening the hearer into attitudes. Words such as 'Fascist,' 'Communist,' 'nigger,' 'bitch,' " and I might add 'idiot,' "are bandied aboutas mere terms of abuse, without thought to their formal significance."
Frankfurt might refer to the latter as 'bullshit,' the use of words without regard for the truth, though instances of such words may often lack an 'intent to deceive'.
The above two quotes are from the chapter "On Signs, Language and Communication" in Colin Cherry's book On Human Communication (MIT, 1966) that I am reading for my Thinking through literature class.
side-note: There's been much excitement of late surrounding the possibility that telecommunications companies may some day introduce tiered internet speeds for content providers. This could lead to, for example, finding yourself more inclined to use MSN as a search engine than Google because Microsoft has ponied up for faster service. Opponents of such a possibility are lobbying the American Congress to add a 'network neutrality' clause into the soon-to-be revamped Telecommunications act. AT&T and Bell, in particular, have responded that they need to introduce price discrimination in order to pay for network upgrades. It seems to me that there are two things that haven't been much talked about. We don't really have 'network neutrality' at present. Sure, big companies with big servers and good connections can provide content at roughly equivalent speeds—and this does create a situation where the merit of provided content is largely determinant of traffic, which is good—but if I put up my own widgets for sale site and, for lack of capital, can only serve it with a crappy little provider, even if I make spendiflerous widgets, I shall be limited in the amount of traffic I can receive. In fact, my web-site shall most surely go off-line at some point if the traffic gets too high and I have not ponied up some more cash. Second, could the telecommunication companies not return to charging end-users a network traffic rate? Or how about such a rate for content-providers? Indeed, I think such rates exist. AT&T and Bell have simply dug themselves a hole, probably by offering companies like Google and Yahoo far too much bandwidth for too little money, and probably failing to anticipate increases in bandwidth usage as more and more of us download videos and music. (The last sentence is entirely conjecture.)
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Grandma's Wisdom
How To Succeed and Survive Without a Struggle
Set aside daily or twice a week some quiet time. Organize your agenda for the next few days. Write down appointments — phone calls to make — errands that need doing.
Sort and organize — your clothes — mail — papers — magazines. Discard things not needed. Locate special bulletins, letters to keep.
Consider having a file — so there is a place to put items to keep or refer to. Just six folders in a file box can be a big help, these are current files.
Decide on priorities — and do them! Result — a feeling of being in control, of accomplishment — and a chance to do some creative thinking.
As you follow this plan it becomes a habit. You will find yourself thinking ahead — new ideas sort of float into your awareness.
Your time and energy are precious and valuable. With a focus they become super productive — and can produce a sort of joyous feeling.
Watch and listen to other people around you. Take their good ideas and make them yours. Learning isn't confined to schools — it is around us all the time.
Keep a record of employment — dates, employer, etc. Many times later you will need this information. There are endless forms to fill out, as we go along life's way.
Have a calendar in your files to help in record keeping, and organizing. A medical record is most useful.
Set aside daily or twice a week some quiet time. Organize your agenda for the next few days. Write down appointments — phone calls to make — errands that need doing.
Sort and organize — your clothes — mail — papers — magazines. Discard things not needed. Locate special bulletins, letters to keep.
Consider having a file — so there is a place to put items to keep or refer to. Just six folders in a file box can be a big help, these are current files.
Decide on priorities — and do them! Result — a feeling of being in control, of accomplishment — and a chance to do some creative thinking.
As you follow this plan it becomes a habit. You will find yourself thinking ahead — new ideas sort of float into your awareness.
Your time and energy are precious and valuable. With a focus they become super productive — and can produce a sort of joyous feeling.
Watch and listen to other people around you. Take their good ideas and make them yours. Learning isn't confined to schools — it is around us all the time.
Keep a record of employment — dates, employer, etc. Many times later you will need this information. There are endless forms to fill out, as we go along life's way.
Have a calendar in your files to help in record keeping, and organizing. A medical record is most useful.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Late nights
It's been a long time since I've been camping. There's something wonderful about it that makes the food you eat taste that much better. Perhaps because it's a bit harder to prepare, it just taste that much better (the grammatical mistake forces you to stop and savour the taste). The flavours stand out a little more.
It's rather late and I'm now back at home listening to "Aminal Magic" by Bonobo. I had a fairly productive day today. I think I have the beginnings of a thesis outline. This may seem rather odd to those of you who know I've already written a first chapter, but, as might be expected, my first chapter revealed more of my ignorance than it did my genius. Sort of unfortunate that way. One day I shall be genius. Until then I'll write about it.
You know, I wonder what sort of tone you imagine I'm writing this with. Considering that I've now asked the question, it is somewhat obvious. And yet.
My outline is of course the new and improved outline. Version 2.0, due to be revised next year with Version 3.0 following fast upon it's tail.
The japanese master of moody down–tempo has arrived. It's like someone ??????.
Anyways, my outline may be something like:
1. La déception du voyage
2. La sensation–commune
3. Art & the literary life
I think those are right.
I hope you're all well.
Love Ev
Sicilian pizza with avocado. Pink lemonade Gatorade. Out of this world.
Fu–Yu says the moody japanese man.
It's rather late and I'm now back at home listening to "Aminal Magic" by Bonobo. I had a fairly productive day today. I think I have the beginnings of a thesis outline. This may seem rather odd to those of you who know I've already written a first chapter, but, as might be expected, my first chapter revealed more of my ignorance than it did my genius. Sort of unfortunate that way. One day I shall be genius. Until then I'll write about it.
You know, I wonder what sort of tone you imagine I'm writing this with. Considering that I've now asked the question, it is somewhat obvious. And yet.
My outline is of course the new and improved outline. Version 2.0, due to be revised next year with Version 3.0 following fast upon it's tail.
The japanese master of moody down–tempo has arrived. It's like someone ??????.
Anyways, my outline may be something like:
1. La déception du voyage
2. La sensation–commune
3. Art & the literary life
I think those are right.
I hope you're all well.
Love Ev
Sicilian pizza with avocado. Pink lemonade Gatorade. Out of this world.
Fu–Yu says the moody japanese man.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Idiots? Really?
A friend of my recently suggested I check out the Democratic Underground, in particular for a weekly column called The Top Ten Conservative Idiots. I appreciate (and aspire to) semantic precision, and so I was already annoyed by the column's title. Does the writer really believe that all of his weekly "conservative idiots" are genuine idiots. I can certainly agree that much of what they say and do is idiotic, in the sense that their words and deeds reveal a great ignorance to the truth of my values and views, but I don't really think they are incapable of ordinary acts of reasoning. The list of idiots this week includes Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, the Bush administration, George Bush, Pat Robertson and Lonnie Latham. Mr. Latham, whom I know nothing about, excepted, the only person on this list who I might label an idiot is Pat Robertson. Certainly, most everything he says is idiotic. And yet, the man has his own TV station and he is at present in talks with the Israeli government about creating a religious theme park in Jerusalem. The principal market would be American evangelicals. Though I find it abhorrent, I must also admit that it is a rather good idea. As for Abramoff, Delay, Bush and his administration, I think it is disingenuous, and more importantly, intellectually lazy, to call them idiots. Oh, and I think it's ineffectual. If the ability to put a cogent sentence together is a good proxy for intelligence, Bush is certainly not the smartest cookie, but the members of his administration, though perhaps morally bankrupt, are (mostly) far from being idiots. Same too for Abramoff and Delay.
Even if I still dislike the presentation, I did enjoy parts of Top Ten Conservative Idiots of the Week. I had the same thoughts as the writer when I first saw pictures of Ambramoff in his black trench coat and fedora (is he trying to look like a mobster?). Perhaps it says something about the amount of news I read that only about a quarter of what was presented was new to me, which is probably part of why I didn't find the article engaging enough to be certain that I'll make it part of my weekly reading, but it may have also had something to do with the lame "HA HA HA" interjections in the piece about Delay.
My dislike of the article centres on the question of partisan confrontational politics versus some sort of more idealized, issues and values based politics. For me, which one you choose depends on how you conceive of the fight. If the goal is to win power by trouncing the opponent, then partisan mongering is perhaps the way to go. But it seems like we still mostly live in a democracy and that we must eventually win power by convincing people to vote for the Democrats. I just don't think "HA HA HA" wins any votes. That said, I have nothing against having a few laughs at the expense of the other side, as long as we keep our entertainment separate from our message (though I should perhaps remember Jon Stewart's pleading "you're hurting America" during his second apperance on Crossfire). Maybe I'm too naive, perhaps we in the US really do live under a junta—one could say that Bush seized power with the help of the Supreme Court and he is, by virtue of his position, a military officer, but I don't think we've reached the horrors of a latin-american dictatorship, which is what the word 'junta' connotes to me. (I might also add that if the Bush administration is a junta, then there is little reason not to apply the label to Hugo Chavez' government. Chavez's "Bolivarian revolution" may be good for his country's much abused poor in the short term, but his tenure will have a pernicious effect on his country over the long-term.) I just don't find statements like this, from an article (also from the Democratic Underground) by Daniel Patick Welch entitled "Pants on Fire: The Liars of the Bush Administration will take the world down in flames if we let them"compelling:
"Sam Alito is merely the latest liar on the block for Bush's full spectrum dominance agenda. But the show-trial hearings on whether this proto-fascist ideologue should be allowed to shape US social and political development for a generation provide some nuggets of insight into how the corrupt junta's pathological liars actually work.
The first order of amazement is that the process can actually take place. Shouldn't precedence be given to hearings on impeaching and imprisoning the corporate cronies who lied us into war? Business As Usual, is, as usual, the most effective weapon in the arsenal of the criminal cabal that has seized control of the US."
The rest of the article is actually quite good. It contains many good points and the writing isn't bad, but its power to convince readers who don't already agree is entirely squandered by the adolescent bombast of the introduction and lines like the following that are peppered throughout, "when Baby Doc Bush tried to appoint his own lawyer, his christofascist paymasters seethed with rage and responded with one voice: "You shut up, and remember why we put you in office in the first place." The swaggering phony cowboy obediently caved, and Harriet Myers made way for Sam Alito." I used to write with that kind of grandiose rhetoric in highschool when I was fighting the global capitalist conspiracy to destroy the earth and its inhabitants. Now, I'm not actually saying his analysis is entirely wrong (I think he's partly right but tends to oversimplify issues), but his rhetoric, though sometimes entertaining, is ineffectual.
Even if I still dislike the presentation, I did enjoy parts of Top Ten Conservative Idiots of the Week. I had the same thoughts as the writer when I first saw pictures of Ambramoff in his black trench coat and fedora (is he trying to look like a mobster?). Perhaps it says something about the amount of news I read that only about a quarter of what was presented was new to me, which is probably part of why I didn't find the article engaging enough to be certain that I'll make it part of my weekly reading, but it may have also had something to do with the lame "HA HA HA" interjections in the piece about Delay.
My dislike of the article centres on the question of partisan confrontational politics versus some sort of more idealized, issues and values based politics. For me, which one you choose depends on how you conceive of the fight. If the goal is to win power by trouncing the opponent, then partisan mongering is perhaps the way to go. But it seems like we still mostly live in a democracy and that we must eventually win power by convincing people to vote for the Democrats. I just don't think "HA HA HA" wins any votes. That said, I have nothing against having a few laughs at the expense of the other side, as long as we keep our entertainment separate from our message (though I should perhaps remember Jon Stewart's pleading "you're hurting America" during his second apperance on Crossfire). Maybe I'm too naive, perhaps we in the US really do live under a junta—one could say that Bush seized power with the help of the Supreme Court and he is, by virtue of his position, a military officer, but I don't think we've reached the horrors of a latin-american dictatorship, which is what the word 'junta' connotes to me. (I might also add that if the Bush administration is a junta, then there is little reason not to apply the label to Hugo Chavez' government. Chavez's "Bolivarian revolution" may be good for his country's much abused poor in the short term, but his tenure will have a pernicious effect on his country over the long-term.) I just don't find statements like this, from an article (also from the Democratic Underground) by Daniel Patick Welch entitled "Pants on Fire: The Liars of the Bush Administration will take the world down in flames if we let them"compelling:
"Sam Alito is merely the latest liar on the block for Bush's full spectrum dominance agenda. But the show-trial hearings on whether this proto-fascist ideologue should be allowed to shape US social and political development for a generation provide some nuggets of insight into how the corrupt junta's pathological liars actually work.
The first order of amazement is that the process can actually take place. Shouldn't precedence be given to hearings on impeaching and imprisoning the corporate cronies who lied us into war? Business As Usual, is, as usual, the most effective weapon in the arsenal of the criminal cabal that has seized control of the US."
The rest of the article is actually quite good. It contains many good points and the writing isn't bad, but its power to convince readers who don't already agree is entirely squandered by the adolescent bombast of the introduction and lines like the following that are peppered throughout, "when Baby Doc Bush tried to appoint his own lawyer, his christofascist paymasters seethed with rage and responded with one voice: "You shut up, and remember why we put you in office in the first place." The swaggering phony cowboy obediently caved, and Harriet Myers made way for Sam Alito." I used to write with that kind of grandiose rhetoric in highschool when I was fighting the global capitalist conspiracy to destroy the earth and its inhabitants. Now, I'm not actually saying his analysis is entirely wrong (I think he's partly right but tends to oversimplify issues), but his rhetoric, though sometimes entertaining, is ineffectual.
Friday, January 06, 2006
That other Santorum makes the Economist
I had never heard of Rick Santorum until Dan Savage made his family name into a word for the mix of lube, cum and fecal matter that can follow anal sex. To this day, when I read the word "Santorum" in print, my immediate association is not to the fundamentalist christian Senator from Pennsylvania who may be unseated in the mid-terms this year. This little cultural tid-bid has at last been acknowledged in The Economist:
The fall of Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's junior senator, is even more eagerly anticipated by the American left. Mr Santorum is one of America's most articulate opponents of all things permissive. His six children are home-schooled; he opposes stem-cell research; he feels that sodomy should be outlawed; he favours national service. James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, an evangelical group, praises his “integrity, vision and unwavering commitment to the principles and beliefs upon which the United States was founded”. Meanwhile, gay activists use his name to denote something indescribable in a family newspaper.
The fall of Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's junior senator, is even more eagerly anticipated by the American left. Mr Santorum is one of America's most articulate opponents of all things permissive. His six children are home-schooled; he opposes stem-cell research; he feels that sodomy should be outlawed; he favours national service. James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, an evangelical group, praises his “integrity, vision and unwavering commitment to the principles and beliefs upon which the United States was founded”. Meanwhile, gay activists use his name to denote something indescribable in a family newspaper.
Monday, January 02, 2006
"in the process of learning to identify objects immediately, we collect groups of identifying labels that apply to general categories of objects or sensory perceptions. In the strictest sense, no two objects and no two impressions ever resemble each other exactly, and the names we apply to them can quickly becomes like worn-out metaphors that hide from us the specificity of this object or this impression. Names give us a false epistemological security; we need them in order to organize, communicate, and act on our experience in the world, but they encourage us to take what are really approximate analogies for exact knowledge of particular things.” (Leo Bersani, Marcel Proust: The Fictions of Art and Life, 206)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)