20050725
more on the test of names
for example, theres this really smart and cute girl (happens to be class president) whose name is pronounced /chin-chin/, but every substitute always prounounces it /kian-kian/. she just laughs and there is not a hint of anger, sometimes annoyance at the predictability of the misprounounciation, but nothing more.
and its not just not getting worked up my mispronounced names. you can call people anything you like, i meant they even call themselves many things; its as if they realize that the name is just a name - the first step towards enlightenment...
you can call /chin-chin/ (whose name is actually pronounced roughly /chien-chien/, more on that later) /kian-kian/ and she wont mind.
people with difficult names often alter them so people can say them, like /chien-chien/ to /chin-chin/. or /shiooen-ming/ to /shan-min/. or /luo/ to /loo/. in fact they even call themselves using the "incorrect" pronounciation!
what an enlightened bunch of people. i mean, one girl one explained to me when i asked what should i call her, that you can call her anything i want. this whole thing brings to mind a quote from Ursula K LeGuin:
Q: Do you pronounce your name the French way or, as most of your fans do, Luh Gwinn?
UKL: Een zees country we say Luh Gwinn. En France nous disons Le Guin, comme le vin or le gain; et en Bretagne - c'est un nom breton - je crois que c'est encore Luh Gwinn. (Like Gwyn in Welsh - I think it's the same word.) It is all my husband's fault, anyhow.
and its not just not getting worked up my mispronounced names. you can call people anything you like, i meant they even call themselves many things; its as if they realize that the name is just a name - the first step towards enlightenment...
you can call /chin-chin/ (whose name is actually pronounced roughly /chien-chien/, more on that later) /kian-kian/ and she wont mind.
people with difficult names often alter them so people can say them, like /chien-chien/ to /chin-chin/. or /shiooen-ming/ to /shan-min/. or /luo/ to /loo/. in fact they even call themselves using the "incorrect" pronounciation!
what an enlightened bunch of people. i mean, one girl one explained to me when i asked what should i call her, that you can call her anything i want. this whole thing brings to mind a quote from Ursula K LeGuin:
Q: Do you pronounce your name the French way or, as most of your fans do, Luh Gwinn?
UKL: Een zees country we say Luh Gwinn. En France nous disons Le Guin, comme le vin or le gain; et en Bretagne - c'est un nom breton - je crois que c'est encore Luh Gwinn. (Like Gwyn in Welsh - I think it's the same word.) It is all my husband's fault, anyhow.
20050724
atheism and names
athe·ist 
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality
(m-w)
very straightforward definitions. so since i do not believe in any deities, i must be an atheist.
but i think God with a capital G is more than a deity, just like m-w. and i also believe in something you might call this God. would you still consider me an atheist? well, i certainly consider myself an atheist. what? how can you say i cant believe in God if i dont believe in deities. well, try to see my position; to me no one that believes in deities can believe in God. i believe whorshiping personified deities constitutes idolatry, which only blinds you to Grace. i also extend idolatry to include whorship of names, books, and rituals. of course labels dont matter. for example, a different definition of atheist would make me a theist.
there is wisdom to be found everywhere. if only people didnt take all the allegories literally!
heres a good test of higher thinking (ie, metaphorical vs concrete), do you get upset if someone mispronounces you name? or do you realize its just a symbol?
the funny thing is, i think theres a correlation between compacity for metaphorical thinking and compacity for other things: now i go to a magnet school (Hunter College High School, an elite school everyone hates because they send more into the ivy elite - H/P/Y - than any other public school in the nation), and no one gets upset if you mispronounce a name. my father used to teach at a high school in the lower east side that bused people in because no other school in the city would accept them (it was closed by the city recently); there if you mispronounced a name a fist fight would break out.
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality
(m-w)
very straightforward definitions. so since i do not believe in any deities, i must be an atheist.
but i think God with a capital G is more than a deity, just like m-w. and i also believe in something you might call this God. would you still consider me an atheist? well, i certainly consider myself an atheist. what? how can you say i cant believe in God if i dont believe in deities. well, try to see my position; to me no one that believes in deities can believe in God. i believe whorshiping personified deities constitutes idolatry, which only blinds you to Grace. i also extend idolatry to include whorship of names, books, and rituals. of course labels dont matter. for example, a different definition of atheist would make me a theist.
there is wisdom to be found everywhere. if only people didnt take all the allegories literally!
heres a good test of higher thinking (ie, metaphorical vs concrete), do you get upset if someone mispronounces you name? or do you realize its just a symbol?
the funny thing is, i think theres a correlation between compacity for metaphorical thinking and compacity for other things: now i go to a magnet school (Hunter College High School, an elite school everyone hates because they send more into the ivy elite - H/P/Y - than any other public school in the nation), and no one gets upset if you mispronounce a name. my father used to teach at a high school in the lower east side that bused people in because no other school in the city would accept them (it was closed by the city recently); there if you mispronounced a name a fist fight would break out.
20050722
the fundamental difference between eastern and western culture
along the lines of todays theme of differences, ill give you an insight i stumbled across in latin class several months ago.
my latin teacher mr unruh was giving a lecture on how romans though men were gravitas and women were levitas, gravitas being heavy: serious, solidly planted, and only moved by important things; levitas being light: trivial (taken by little things) and emotional.
how interesting as the chinese philosophy of opposites declared that men were yang and women yin, with yang being light (impulsive, even emotional?), and yin heavy (not easy to rile up emotions)!
these two views seem to be exact opposites...
doublely relevant to our theme, as the difference between the two cultures is in the percieved differece between the two sexes!
on a different note, albeit slightly, for a while i thought only the east believed in strength through yielding (think all the teachings of Lao Tzu). but then i found the fable, The Oak and the Reeds. In this fable the Reeds yielding to the hurricane did not break, but the Oak proudly standing firm fell and lay among the pitying Reeds. This can either refer to change, or to "strength through yielding" in general.
my latin teacher mr unruh was giving a lecture on how romans though men were gravitas and women were levitas, gravitas being heavy: serious, solidly planted, and only moved by important things; levitas being light: trivial (taken by little things) and emotional.
how interesting as the chinese philosophy of opposites declared that men were yang and women yin, with yang being light (impulsive, even emotional?), and yin heavy (not easy to rile up emotions)!
these two views seem to be exact opposites...
doublely relevant to our theme, as the difference between the two cultures is in the percieved differece between the two sexes!
on a different note, albeit slightly, for a while i thought only the east believed in strength through yielding (think all the teachings of Lao Tzu). but then i found the fable, The Oak and the Reeds. In this fable the Reeds yielding to the hurricane did not break, but the Oak proudly standing firm fell and lay among the pitying Reeds. This can either refer to change, or to "strength through yielding" in general.
and that made all the difference (S32-17.2)
some people are weird. take for example my dad from 11 on. some of these people know it too. but were do you draw the line between weird and something entirly different -- interesting as in cool.
i remember this one girl used to call people weird. it took a while, but i finally managed to figure out the translation from girl into english, its either ugly or gay. similarly interesting can have too meanings, cool or weird. and weird is typically not cool. so whats the difference between what people think is cool interesting, and what they think is weird interesting?
well right off the bat, pretty much any kind of physical sport is automatically cool interesting. a good example is kayaking. another easy one: pilots are cool. and of course the english translations of weird are always weird by definition. (and this doesnt mean im a biggot or anything, because if you think that stuff is great, than weird is a positive word, by definition again; you know i dont know what im talking about because my friends a lesbian and shes cool; for the purposes of the post, i meant weird to mean crank, but not necessarily old)
but ultimatly, its all relative. because what is cool to one person can be weird to another. relativity asside, my goal as a teenager is still to be cool interesting in everyones eyes.
the difference between cool and weird is defined by more than just personal interests though. for example, an interest in linguistics can very well be cool, if you never go futher than mentioning it in conversation, as talking about how exciting ablaut is will immedially brand you as weird. more important that you interests, is your manner of talking, walking, etc. and about the manner, girls like relaxed confidance (including interest/listening), but i digress.
ok, lets go through a few systematically: piloting/sports - always cool, reading - only cool if you talk about books the other person read, reading poetry - it all depends, but usually cool if used correctly, philsophy and spirituality - again depends but usually cool, linguistics/conlanging - manner is important in making this not weird, singing - always cool i would think?
sorry, this post really had no structure. but my question was what makes unique characteristics (ie, beer is not one) cool or weirde. my conclusion is something along the lines of if you let it be discovered by the other person without you drawing attention to it, its ok. for example, one of my friends (the same one as before in fact) is a political activist, and has buttons all over. but no one calls her weird because she doesnt talk about it. of course whether eating worms is cool depends more on the other person in this case.
i remember this one girl used to call people weird. it took a while, but i finally managed to figure out the translation from girl into english, its either ugly or gay. similarly interesting can have too meanings, cool or weird. and weird is typically not cool. so whats the difference between what people think is cool interesting, and what they think is weird interesting?
well right off the bat, pretty much any kind of physical sport is automatically cool interesting. a good example is kayaking. another easy one: pilots are cool. and of course the english translations of weird are always weird by definition. (and this doesnt mean im a biggot or anything, because if you think that stuff is great, than weird is a positive word, by definition again; you know i dont know what im talking about because my friends a lesbian and shes cool; for the purposes of the post, i meant weird to mean crank, but not necessarily old)
but ultimatly, its all relative. because what is cool to one person can be weird to another. relativity asside, my goal as a teenager is still to be cool interesting in everyones eyes.
the difference between cool and weird is defined by more than just personal interests though. for example, an interest in linguistics can very well be cool, if you never go futher than mentioning it in conversation, as talking about how exciting ablaut is will immedially brand you as weird. more important that you interests, is your manner of talking, walking, etc. and about the manner, girls like relaxed confidance (including interest/listening), but i digress.
ok, lets go through a few systematically: piloting/sports - always cool, reading - only cool if you talk about books the other person read, reading poetry - it all depends, but usually cool if used correctly, philsophy and spirituality - again depends but usually cool, linguistics/conlanging - manner is important in making this not weird, singing - always cool i would think?
sorry, this post really had no structure. but my question was what makes unique characteristics (ie, beer is not one) cool or weirde. my conclusion is something along the lines of if you let it be discovered by the other person without you drawing attention to it, its ok. for example, one of my friends (the same one as before in fact) is a political activist, and has buttons all over. but no one calls her weird because she doesnt talk about it. of course whether eating worms is cool depends more on the other person in this case.
20050708
oh no! a fundamentalist in our midst
it was comming, your first bibical quote! oh boy, fun!
this one is from the Book of Virtue, Chapter 73:
Who will interpret
the judgment of heaven?
Even the wise soul
finds it hard.
...
The net of heaven
is vast, vast,
wide-meshed,
yet missed nothing.
so often people claiming to be religious leaders profess they (and they alone) know god's plan, god's judgement. how can you say my fate was decided by god? that your actions are justified by god? and who are you to say what god has chosen? who are you to say who god has chosen?
maybe i am a fundamentalist, but then again interpreting things concretly has never been my strong point.
this one is from the Book of Virtue, Chapter 73:
Who will interpret
the judgment of heaven?
Even the wise soul
finds it hard.
...
The net of heaven
is vast, vast,
wide-meshed,
yet missed nothing.
so often people claiming to be religious leaders profess they (and they alone) know god's plan, god's judgement. how can you say my fate was decided by god? that your actions are justified by god? and who are you to say what god has chosen? who are you to say who god has chosen?
maybe i am a fundamentalist, but then again interpreting things concretly has never been my strong point.
a treatise on measurement (abstract)
S18.05-3
there are two types of units of measurement in my mind, arbitrary units and natural units. arbitrary units are based on nothing, and natural units on something meaningful, pretty much self explanitory.
but of course its not black and white, theres a spectrum. english units for example are among the most arbitrary, metric is slightly less. units like the electron volt are pretty natural, but the most natural are definatly the planck units.
these truly natural units are based on the universal constants that define this universe. thats about as natural as you can get. in particular, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, and diracs constant.
the major disadvantage is that the units are too small or too big. so you scale them up or down by some factor of ten (personally id use some factor of e, its more natural). the scaled out distance is 1.004 miles, time 0.9 minutes or 54 seconds, mass 4.8 pounds.
the other major disadvantage that i really should mention is that no one can agree on just which constant to use. plancks or diracs? i didnt mention the natural charge because there the disagreements get bad (electron volt, third electron volt, coulomb force constant, or permitivity of a vacuum?). oh, and people cant agree on whether to use 10 or e as a scale up factor.
but planck, a world renowned nobel prize winner, campaigned his whole life to promote natural units, and nothing came of it. what make me think ill be more successful than planck. and not just natural units, the natural calendar looks like an even tougher sell. but we do have one thing planck didnt, the internet.
btw, i hope you realize by now that the whole "treatise" title thing is supposed to be satirical (think kaynes).
there are two types of units of measurement in my mind, arbitrary units and natural units. arbitrary units are based on nothing, and natural units on something meaningful, pretty much self explanitory.
but of course its not black and white, theres a spectrum. english units for example are among the most arbitrary, metric is slightly less. units like the electron volt are pretty natural, but the most natural are definatly the planck units.
these truly natural units are based on the universal constants that define this universe. thats about as natural as you can get. in particular, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, and diracs constant.
the major disadvantage is that the units are too small or too big. so you scale them up or down by some factor of ten (personally id use some factor of e, its more natural). the scaled out distance is 1.004 miles, time 0.9 minutes or 54 seconds, mass 4.8 pounds.
the other major disadvantage that i really should mention is that no one can agree on just which constant to use. plancks or diracs? i didnt mention the natural charge because there the disagreements get bad (electron volt, third electron volt, coulomb force constant, or permitivity of a vacuum?). oh, and people cant agree on whether to use 10 or e as a scale up factor.
but planck, a world renowned nobel prize winner, campaigned his whole life to promote natural units, and nothing came of it. what make me think ill be more successful than planck. and not just natural units, the natural calendar looks like an even tougher sell. but we do have one thing planck didnt, the internet.
btw, i hope you realize by now that the whole "treatise" title thing is supposed to be satirical (think kaynes).
oh yeah...
oops, i forgot to post the date in natural terms with my previous post...
today is S17.05-2.2 (you could actually put simply S17.05-2),
or in english: Midsummer 17th, 2005, 2nd of month, 2nd of week (twosday?)
today is S17.05-2.2 (you could actually put simply S17.05-2),
or in english: Midsummer 17th, 2005, 2nd of month, 2nd of week (twosday?)
degenerative principle
looking into historical linguistics, i noticed something about how languages evolve. this may seem basic to an actual linguistics, but as a layman i found it interesting that languages always get corrupted with time. i guess all things are like that. im thinking of biological evolution in particular, where it all comes down to mutation, or copy errors.
in my view (here i go again about how the gwc sees the world... dont say i didnt warn you) the romance languages are all just bastardizations of latin (yup, youre right, im a latin student). but of course latin is just a bastardization of PIE (among the few things worth of capitalization here). im referring to the loss of cases like the instrumentive and the loss of numbers like the dual. yes, its all been downhill since PIE.
i call this the degenerative principle (oh, im so clever, and so modest as well). the principle that forms get dropped or at least corrupted with time. "but duh, of course they are," would say the linguist, "people already identified that process, and its called mutation, or the telephone-game-principle." (i admit, i made that last one up).
it can even explain the production of tones in far eastern languages. watch: because of the degerative principle, consonant clusters like "pl" or "st" were gradually lost. and because of the ideographic correlation contricting factor (i made that up to sound sophisticated), words stayed single sylables (the chinese one ideograph one sylable rule, enforced by the emperor a number of occations). as a result tones developed in order for people to know what the hell people were saying, i mean otherwise one sylable would have over a hundred possible characters/meanings due to the restricted syllabary (this is a fancy word for number of possible sylables). the syllabary was also further restricted by a limited number of vowels (six for mandarin), and it is easier for tones to spontaneously arise than sounds one has never heard before (like the rolled zh often notated r, as in dvorak). nota bene, multiple sylable (and thus multiple ideograph) words also developed as a result of the degenerative principle, but later.
since im not actually a linguist, im probably forgetting things like the eastern european languages not losing cases at all, but gaining them. oh well.
in my view (here i go again about how the gwc sees the world... dont say i didnt warn you) the romance languages are all just bastardizations of latin (yup, youre right, im a latin student). but of course latin is just a bastardization of PIE (among the few things worth of capitalization here). im referring to the loss of cases like the instrumentive and the loss of numbers like the dual. yes, its all been downhill since PIE.
i call this the degenerative principle (oh, im so clever, and so modest as well). the principle that forms get dropped or at least corrupted with time. "but duh, of course they are," would say the linguist, "people already identified that process, and its called mutation, or the telephone-game-principle." (i admit, i made that last one up).
it can even explain the production of tones in far eastern languages. watch: because of the degerative principle, consonant clusters like "pl" or "st" were gradually lost. and because of the ideographic correlation contricting factor (i made that up to sound sophisticated), words stayed single sylables (the chinese one ideograph one sylable rule, enforced by the emperor a number of occations). as a result tones developed in order for people to know what the hell people were saying, i mean otherwise one sylable would have over a hundred possible characters/meanings due to the restricted syllabary (this is a fancy word for number of possible sylables). the syllabary was also further restricted by a limited number of vowels (six for mandarin), and it is easier for tones to spontaneously arise than sounds one has never heard before (like the rolled zh often notated r, as in dvorak). nota bene, multiple sylable (and thus multiple ideograph) words also developed as a result of the degenerative principle, but later.
since im not actually a linguist, im probably forgetting things like the eastern european languages not losing cases at all, but gaining them. oh well.
20050706
a treatise on timekeeping - a nonconformist opening posting
i have declared war on the arbitrary. arbitrary power, arbitrary justice, and arbitrary calendars. (all of this stems from my personal philosophy, but ill get more into that later) from my point of view, all systems should arise from something meaningful. but that alone is not enough of course, it must stay true to that meaning, whatever it may be. here we are talking in the context of calendars.
does anyone know where the word month came from? thats right, moon. its no coincidence that the time between two new moons is about a month. and what about a week? well, heres a hint: just as moon and month are the same character in chinese, "week" contains the character for "phase." you guessed it, the span between one phase and another, such as quarter moon and full moon, is about a week.
for those of you who are unfamiliar with the study of calendars, the week and month are considered to be "arbitrary systems," as they both no longer bear any relation to the cycles of the moon, and are fixed to an arbitrary cycle of 7 or 28/29/30/31 days no matter what. as you have heard, i have a thing against the arbitrary.
this system must be memorized (31-28-31-30-31-30-31-31-30-31-30-31), and you might say constantly reinforced. by this i mean, if you were stranded in the middle of nowhere without a calendar, you would have to carfully keep track of time or else youd forget the date. in my mind, you have wonderful timekeeping devices right in front of you, namely the sun and the moon. why not use them?
so instead of an arbitrary meaningless system, we could simply refer to the natural. so instead of saying 15 days since the arbitrary point known as april (april 15th), you could say 27 days since the quite natural point known as spring (spring 27th). nota bene, some consider this midspring instead of spring, in which case youd just say midspring. no bigie.
but that involves quite a bit of counting, and we arent using the other timekeeper, the moon of course. now whats the point of using units called moons, when it really no longer has much to do with the moon? so lets count days since the real begining of the new month - the new moon.
and what about weeks? a week is really a phase, so just count day since the start of the phase. again, its the same concept, just applied correctly to something natural, not arbitrary.
i also came up with a neat way of compactly storing several pieces of this information. if you like it, use it. if not, come up with your own! so this year ('05), the 21st of autumn is also 10 days since the new moon, and 3 days since the start of the phase (in this case the first quarter). you could express that as Season.Day.Year-Month.Week: A21.05-10.3 i guess the 10.3 part is sorta like the day of the gregorian week, unnecesssary, a little long, but useful. nota bene, i like to represent the seasons as W-winter, V-spring, S-summer, A-autumn. S was used for summer, so for spring i use "vernal," as in vernal equinox, the start of spring/midspring.
later i will show you a neat way of determing which month of the year and which week of the month from the relationships between the day-ofs.
this is an idea id been brooding over for some time. because its completly natural, you can use it in everyday life, and people will know what youre talking about, so no ones stopping you. but i wouldnt put it on you tax forms just yet ;), just letters and so forth. what other advantages? well, its culturally neutral and highly adaptable (ie, you dont like new moons? just count from the full moon, and say so).
but the greatest advantage to me is that because it holds meaning to everyone, and can be read by anyone, no small group can use it to wield power over time. in the past, because calendars were arbitrary, the calendarless would have to ask the calendered-class to know even the date. by controlling the peoples timekeeping, they controlled the people. a natural calendar cannot be owned, or taken over. it is the inalienable heratage of all beings of this earth. a very subversive thought, no wonder the status quo fears people like me.
btw, it is currently 16 days past midsummer, and the new moon (S16.05-1.1)
also, i cannot label this as of my own invention because of its very nature, and doing so would be downright hyprocritical. and along those lines, no one else go around claiming to have invented this, or my suggested abbreviation.
does anyone know where the word month came from? thats right, moon. its no coincidence that the time between two new moons is about a month. and what about a week? well, heres a hint: just as moon and month are the same character in chinese, "week" contains the character for "phase." you guessed it, the span between one phase and another, such as quarter moon and full moon, is about a week.
for those of you who are unfamiliar with the study of calendars, the week and month are considered to be "arbitrary systems," as they both no longer bear any relation to the cycles of the moon, and are fixed to an arbitrary cycle of 7 or 28/29/30/31 days no matter what. as you have heard, i have a thing against the arbitrary.
this system must be memorized (31-28-31-30-31-30-31-31-30-31-30-31), and you might say constantly reinforced. by this i mean, if you were stranded in the middle of nowhere without a calendar, you would have to carfully keep track of time or else youd forget the date. in my mind, you have wonderful timekeeping devices right in front of you, namely the sun and the moon. why not use them?
so instead of an arbitrary meaningless system, we could simply refer to the natural. so instead of saying 15 days since the arbitrary point known as april (april 15th), you could say 27 days since the quite natural point known as spring (spring 27th). nota bene, some consider this midspring instead of spring, in which case youd just say midspring. no bigie.
but that involves quite a bit of counting, and we arent using the other timekeeper, the moon of course. now whats the point of using units called moons, when it really no longer has much to do with the moon? so lets count days since the real begining of the new month - the new moon.
and what about weeks? a week is really a phase, so just count day since the start of the phase. again, its the same concept, just applied correctly to something natural, not arbitrary.
i also came up with a neat way of compactly storing several pieces of this information. if you like it, use it. if not, come up with your own! so this year ('05), the 21st of autumn is also 10 days since the new moon, and 3 days since the start of the phase (in this case the first quarter). you could express that as Season.Day.Year-Month.Week: A21.05-10.3 i guess the 10.3 part is sorta like the day of the gregorian week, unnecesssary, a little long, but useful. nota bene, i like to represent the seasons as W-winter, V-spring, S-summer, A-autumn. S was used for summer, so for spring i use "vernal," as in vernal equinox, the start of spring/midspring.
later i will show you a neat way of determing which month of the year and which week of the month from the relationships between the day-ofs.
this is an idea id been brooding over for some time. because its completly natural, you can use it in everyday life, and people will know what youre talking about, so no ones stopping you. but i wouldnt put it on you tax forms just yet ;), just letters and so forth. what other advantages? well, its culturally neutral and highly adaptable (ie, you dont like new moons? just count from the full moon, and say so).
but the greatest advantage to me is that because it holds meaning to everyone, and can be read by anyone, no small group can use it to wield power over time. in the past, because calendars were arbitrary, the calendarless would have to ask the calendered-class to know even the date. by controlling the peoples timekeeping, they controlled the people. a natural calendar cannot be owned, or taken over. it is the inalienable heratage of all beings of this earth. a very subversive thought, no wonder the status quo fears people like me.
btw, it is currently 16 days past midsummer, and the new moon (S16.05-1.1)
also, i cannot label this as of my own invention because of its very nature, and doing so would be downright hyprocritical. and along those lines, no one else go around claiming to have invented this, or my suggested abbreviation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
