my dad is a pessimist. but i look down history, and i see that the truth always wins out eventually. and once it does, it cannot loose anything but small battles. but every time a lie wins a battle, it is just one battle closer to loosing the war (that is so cliche). im thinking of the round earth theory, the jovian planets, the heliocentric universe, gravity, etc.
so i dont see a dystopic future. because once we win a truth, a freedom, we dont let go. some like to say we are losing our freedoms here in america. but that is not true. the day a single american-born citizen is arrested without habeus corpus, the day a single porn site if blocked nationally, the day millions of women are denied access to life-saving contraceptives or abortions, is the day civil war will break out. (wow, im truly an optimist)
but im also conflicted here, because sometimes i get depressed and think yes we have our "freedoms" but only the ones that dont count. people are free to buy greese burgers and watch porn. but i feel like the best way to control is from below, without offensive tactics. so while people are not banned from thinking, very few of us do. we just sit in front of our tvs, stuffing ourselves like tyson chickens, and not a thought in the country. the intellectual/truly spiritual/thinking crowd is a shrinking minority. though it might not be, id have to do a survey.
my grandmother's favorite saying is theres nothing new under the sun. but more i am finding that i disagree. around two thousand years ago, one man discovered enlightenment and traveled the land preaching love and peace until he accidentaly died of poison mushrooms. at least in our country there is health care and welfare, so another great depression will not happen the way it did. but she would say that isnt what matters, its human nature that does not change. well, parents no longer beat their children universally. people no longer watch gladiatorial battles and find real death amusing. i optimistically think the humanity is on its way down the path to enlightenment. sure we have wars, but not like we used to (from the very beginning to 100 years ago). a middle class of semi-enlightened developed between the Allegory-governed, and the Stratification-governed has developed and strenthened. (the class of concrete thought, and the thought of concrete class) i could only wish that one day, 100% of everyone will be so called "middle class," which for some reason i equivlate with intellectual and truly-spiritual-and-not-just-religious. and slavery was abolished. and there is a larger class of people genuinely enlightened enough to recognize people have inherant dignity and right.
speaking of good people, i people are good at heart. everyone has a spark of god (嗡 嘛呢叭咪吽) inside of them. but i also know there are some people that seem not to care about others. almost like they dont have empathy, which together with the closely related metaphor, are the primary constituence of what makes us human, what allows us to think. i think this person is a very rare individual, and might not even exist. i passed a book in b&n the other day called anti-social, which says 1 in 25 cannot empathize, and cannot feel guilt. this is alittle scary. i mean walking down the street, at least in new york, people are friendly, and everyone has guilt. by this i mean if you bump into someone and they get angry, if you let them know you are genuinly sorry, then their sympathy will force them to forgive you. people are always holding doors for one another, helping people find their way, smiling back if you smile, etc. i know i sound like grandpa when he takes his heart medication (rambling, but its ok). ill stop now.
20050824
optimism
i attribute the dark ages of europe to christian fundamentalism that set in 1500 years ago and lasted a millennium. similarly the far east fell into the dark around 500 years ago due to confucian fundamentalism (the time the confucian scholars banned trade and exploration abroad, as well as destroyed history's largest navy even today), although it was forced out of the dark abruptly and is projected to be back up and running (that is, the tides of power are returning) this century. the islamic world also fell into a dark age around the time they banned science.
fundamentalism is dangarous because it outlaws free thought. i like to define fundamentalism as concrete literal interpretation. for example, one could read genesis and find great wisdom. but unless you use the powers of the mind given to you (our greatest power is of course thought) and read the true metaphorical meaning of something, you miss the lessons and teachings that would otherwise help you get in touch with yourself and understand God, and instead leave learning nothing more than the words on the page, namely that the world was created in six periods of 24 hours.
but though cynical, i like to call myself an optimist. all those dark periods in our history, when people fell under the power of the Allegory, and ironically could not see allegory anymore, eventually lifted. one of the most recent being the christian fundamentalist caused dark age over new england three hundred years ago. that lifted some time around 200 years ago, so im confidant that the thought will return to the south sometime soon.
speaking of i.d., i have absolutly no idea where the controversy is. if you look at it scientifically, evolution is as solidly explained by science as gravity. if you look at it morally, it goes against everything this country was founded upon to clearly try to establish a religion. you can keep your spirituality and still keep science, you just have to let go of the Allegory and see, but as Plato explained, letting go is something people would rather die or kill than do. but still, i can accept the darwin was right, and that god intended the world to turn out the way it did. how are they mutually exclusive? though i think its a matter a semantics. and also that trying to express how god works in human terms wont help you see.
fundamentalism is dangarous because it outlaws free thought. i like to define fundamentalism as concrete literal interpretation. for example, one could read genesis and find great wisdom. but unless you use the powers of the mind given to you (our greatest power is of course thought) and read the true metaphorical meaning of something, you miss the lessons and teachings that would otherwise help you get in touch with yourself and understand God, and instead leave learning nothing more than the words on the page, namely that the world was created in six periods of 24 hours.
but though cynical, i like to call myself an optimist. all those dark periods in our history, when people fell under the power of the Allegory, and ironically could not see allegory anymore, eventually lifted. one of the most recent being the christian fundamentalist caused dark age over new england three hundred years ago. that lifted some time around 200 years ago, so im confidant that the thought will return to the south sometime soon.
speaking of i.d., i have absolutly no idea where the controversy is. if you look at it scientifically, evolution is as solidly explained by science as gravity. if you look at it morally, it goes against everything this country was founded upon to clearly try to establish a religion. you can keep your spirituality and still keep science, you just have to let go of the Allegory and see, but as Plato explained, letting go is something people would rather die or kill than do. but still, i can accept the darwin was right, and that god intended the world to turn out the way it did. how are they mutually exclusive? though i think its a matter a semantics. and also that trying to express how god works in human terms wont help you see.
"enter-ization analects"
it gets annoying reading about how evolution cannot explain sudden "leaps" in speciation, that the intermediate fossils have never been found. well let me introduce a new concept - Punctuated Equillibrium. its pretty much the scientific explaination for "sudden leaps in sepciation," and god isnt mentioned once. just ask stephan to explain it. the things people say are amazing. ie, there is no scientific explaination for the gaps in the fossil record; but omg, THERE IS!!!
azimuthal
three-six-zero-heading = polaris-ward
zero-niner-zero-heading = dawn-ward
one-eight-zero-heading = sigma-octantis-ward
two-seven-zero-heading = dusk-ward
zero-niner-zero-heading = dawn-ward
one-eight-zero-heading = sigma-octantis-ward
two-seven-zero-heading = dusk-ward
20050823
Mpemba effect
I learned about this effect in chemistry class, but only as an unnamed medieval superstition that was later disproved by scientific authorities several hundred years ago.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Mpemba effect is the somewhat surprising phenomenon whereby hot water can, under certain conditions, freeze faster than cold water.
The effect is named for its rediscoverer, the Tanzanian high-school student Erasto B. Mpemba. He first noticed the effect in 1963 after observing the freezing of ice cream in cookery classes, and went on to publish experimental results with Dr. Denis G. Osborne in 1969. At first sight, the effect is contrary to Newton's law of cooling. Despite this, it has been widely reproduced in controlled experiments, although it is still poorly understood. The effect is not universal under all experimental conditions, so its exact requirements have proved difficult to specify.
Mpemba first encountered the phenomenon in the classroom of Eugene Marschall at Mkwawa Secondary (formerly High) School, Iringa, Tanzania, where Mpemba was a student. Eugene Marschall, a member of the Teachers for East Africa/TEA program, taught chemistry & physics at this school 1965 to 1967.
It is believed that the effect arises from some interaction between:
- Evaporation reducing the volume to be frozen
- Effect of boiling on dissolved gases and ions (lime scale formation). As more dissolved material is added, the freezing point lowers and more time is required to freeze.
- Convection
- Effects from surroundings such as the insulating effects of frost
- Supercooling, initially hot water may be less likely to supercool than cold water. Therefore ice formation occurs at different final temperatures in hot and cold water.
- Different definitions of the term "freezing". Is it the physical definition of the point at which water reaches 0°C, or the point at which the water forms a visible surface layer of ice, or the point at which the entire volume of water becomes a solid block of ice?
- The material freezing in question. Mpemba's initial observations were with ice cream mixtures, not water. The anecdotal evidence for the Mpemba effect came from a variety of ice cream manufacturers and the food processing industry worldwide, for a variety of water containing foodstuffs. However, the controlled experiments verifying the effect generally used pure water.
The effect was known to ancient scientists such as Aristotle, and Early Modern scientists such as Francis Bacon and René Descartes. Aristotle's explanation was that this was due to a physical property he called antiperistasis, defined as "the supposed increase in the intensity of a quality as a result of being surrounded by its contrary quality". He used the concept of antiperistasis to provide evidence for his conjecture that human bodies and bodies of water were hotter in the winter than in the summer, a theory that was later disproved by Medieval and Renaissance observations. As the explanations of the freezing effect lacked a testable theory, modern science had reduced the observations to folklore.
Mpemba's story is often given as a cautionary parable to those who reject theories or experiments solely because they seem counterintuitive, or contradict accepted theories, or because their proponent is not an expert. In the six years between Mpemba's discovery and his publication, his ideas were rejected on a number of occasions by his physics teachers and other authorities, and it was only the reproducibility of the effect by himself and others that drove Mpemba to persist against this resistance.
水
i like my water ice cold, or resonably hot. lukewarm water just isnt my cup of tea. and by resonably hot i mean hot enough to soothe my throat, but not hot enough to burn my mouth or tongue. hot water really helps sometimes. then i get to thinking, can we be adapted to drink hot water? we certainly arent supposed to drink ice cold water, thats for sure. maybe the only water our ancestors drank was lukewarm. but if we evolved after fire, maybe hot water is where its at.
on another note, the character for water is a six pointed star. how interesting that the water molecule hydrogen-bonds at angles corresponding to such a shape. but then again, you can see on a large scale, the intermolecular structure of water in water crystals (aka ice). because of the fractalness, you dont need a microscope here. then again, the ancient form of the character doesnt look anything like a six pointed star, so this is all bullshit.
on another note, the character for water is a six pointed star. how interesting that the water molecule hydrogen-bonds at angles corresponding to such a shape. but then again, you can see on a large scale, the intermolecular structure of water in water crystals (aka ice). because of the fractalness, you dont need a microscope here. then again, the ancient form of the character doesnt look anything like a six pointed star, so this is all bullshit.
20050822
rhetorical phrases
reverse disrimination: "discrimination against an individual or group that is usually or traditionally in the majority" or discriminatory policies or acts that benefit a historically sociopolitically nondominant group"
i really dislike this phrase because discrimination against the majority is discrimination too. and this phrase somehow suggests that it is different from discrimination, and that it maybe counters it.
and by the way, by the above definition, reverse disrimination does not even apply to affirmative action, because it only helps the newly defined term known as "underrepresented minorities," which somehow includes women which comprise of more than 50% of the population, and does not include asians which are a much smaller minority than people of african descent.
i really dislike this phrase because discrimination against the majority is discrimination too. and this phrase somehow suggests that it is different from discrimination, and that it maybe counters it.
and by the way, by the above definition, reverse disrimination does not even apply to affirmative action, because it only helps the newly defined term known as "underrepresented minorities," which somehow includes women which comprise of more than 50% of the population, and does not include asians which are a much smaller minority than people of african descent.
the other cause
the primary characteristic of americans (besides fat) is definatly insecure. its a whole culture of insecurity. people have poor body image (leading to eating disorders), and more importantly, are very very VERY easily insulted.
free speech my ass. you cant say anything in this country without someone suing you for emotional damages. i recently met a delegation from beijing at a conferance. and i realized that many of the freedoms of expression that they take for granted are completly not allowed in this country. i kept telling them, im not insecure so you can speak your will in front of me, but dont ever let anyone else here those sentences. also, by the time they returned to beijing, i had made them a whole page of american euphamisms for things that cannot be said here, just from the conversations we had. really, dont get me started on the whole pc thing. its disgusting. and i also hate how pc only applies to blacks, i mean people of african descent, and not asians. by the way, pc is pretty much bipartisan, and not liberal as most people think. i cant think of a good reason at the moment, so youll have to take my word for it until i do.
this will be the other cause of the fall of western civilization. i was inspired to make this post because i was thinking of the joke "jesus saves, but moses invests" (i was reminded of it from an article i was reading about intelligent falling downloaded from a really cool blog) and thought that would make a good poster ad for a bank "jesus saves, you should too." but then i realized that you would get so sued, because youre only free to say things like that in places like china.
free speech my ass. you cant say anything in this country without someone suing you for emotional damages. i recently met a delegation from beijing at a conferance. and i realized that many of the freedoms of expression that they take for granted are completly not allowed in this country. i kept telling them, im not insecure so you can speak your will in front of me, but dont ever let anyone else here those sentences. also, by the time they returned to beijing, i had made them a whole page of american euphamisms for things that cannot be said here, just from the conversations we had. really, dont get me started on the whole pc thing. its disgusting. and i also hate how pc only applies to blacks, i mean people of african descent, and not asians. by the way, pc is pretty much bipartisan, and not liberal as most people think. i cant think of a good reason at the moment, so youll have to take my word for it until i do.
this will be the other cause of the fall of western civilization. i was inspired to make this post because i was thinking of the joke "jesus saves, but moses invests" (i was reminded of it from an article i was reading about intelligent falling downloaded from a really cool blog) and thought that would make a good poster ad for a bank "jesus saves, you should too." but then i realized that you would get so sued, because youre only free to say things like that in places like china.
20050821
the downfall of western civilization S62.05-17.3
i hate how people are always saying teachers dont work long enough and earn too much, and that everyone else, say a mail man, works way too much and doesnt get paid nearly enough.
i believe knowledge should be respected. this may have to do with where i live, because i recently found out that the rest of america is quite anti-intellectual. so most americans wont like what im about to say, but in case any foreigners are reading this, ill say it anyway.
what makes us human and sets us apart from the others, is the passing on of this knowledge and wisdom through the generations. therefore i agree with many of (some of) the ancients in saying the keeper of knowledge it the most important and most worthy of respect, not the merchant, not the king.
1) teachers nowadays have no rights to speak of. if they do so much as say a harsh word, they'll get fired or sued. they cant even strike fully without civil war breaking out, as with the kids home the parents cant go to work easily, and the entire american economy falls apart.
2) people outside of education have a different understanding of work hours than teachers. they see that teachers are only in the workplace a few hours. what they dont get is that teachers, unlike everybody else, take the work back home with the. teachers work from the moment they wake up to the moment they sleep, grading papers, preparing lesson plans, writing tests for hours on end.
3) teachers also develop an ancient bond with their students, almost a parent-child bond, because their work is so ancient and human. most teachers lose sleep and have nightmares about their bad things happening to their "children" (as they often call them in fact).
in the end, teachers actually work 24/7. because unlike a construction worker, teachers dont stop working when they punch out of work.
4) teachers often have to spend more time in college than a doctor. no, i didnt believe it at first either. of course this is only in some state requirements, and private primary and secondary schools dont work the same way. so why are doctors, businessmen, and politicians respected more than teachers? prescription stampers, thiefs, and liers? because of anti-intellectualism actually, but that will be a different rant, i mean post.
5) as ive said, teachers make nothing. so if you want to make money, become a businessman or doctor. if you want to help humanity, become a volunteer: join the peace core, or become a teacher. these people joined not for money of course, but soley because they had a vision to change the world, one person at a time.
and what about that mailman? they "work" 10 hours a day, according to the news yesterday. but ive seen them. no matter how hard they try, they finish all their mail in 2 hours. and so they sit on a bench outside for the rest of the 6 hours. then they go back to the post office to get in some overtime. and its a political patronage job anyway, unlike the merocratic world of acedemia. do you think any mailman has lost sleep worrying if they lost mail? and did they become one because they wanted to help people?
the problem is probably that all those bad students that hated school grew up and became politicians, businessmen, and other people of power and wealth. and now they dictate society.
School is just daycare for an industrial machine in this country.
i know i sound bitter. but i only mourn for america. why cant people uderstand that the children are our future? do you think you will live forever?
故善人者，不善人之師﹔
不善人者，善人之資 。
不貴其師，不愛其資 ，
雖智大迷，是謂要妙 。
Good people teach people who aren't good yet.
The the less good are the makings of the good.
An one who doesn't respect a teacher
or cherish a student
may be clever, but has gone astray.
There's a deep mystery here.
Virtue 27:7
i believe knowledge should be respected. this may have to do with where i live, because i recently found out that the rest of america is quite anti-intellectual. so most americans wont like what im about to say, but in case any foreigners are reading this, ill say it anyway.
what makes us human and sets us apart from the others, is the passing on of this knowledge and wisdom through the generations. therefore i agree with many of (some of) the ancients in saying the keeper of knowledge it the most important and most worthy of respect, not the merchant, not the king.
1) teachers nowadays have no rights to speak of. if they do so much as say a harsh word, they'll get fired or sued. they cant even strike fully without civil war breaking out, as with the kids home the parents cant go to work easily, and the entire american economy falls apart.
2) people outside of education have a different understanding of work hours than teachers. they see that teachers are only in the workplace a few hours. what they dont get is that teachers, unlike everybody else, take the work back home with the. teachers work from the moment they wake up to the moment they sleep, grading papers, preparing lesson plans, writing tests for hours on end.
3) teachers also develop an ancient bond with their students, almost a parent-child bond, because their work is so ancient and human. most teachers lose sleep and have nightmares about their bad things happening to their "children" (as they often call them in fact).
in the end, teachers actually work 24/7. because unlike a construction worker, teachers dont stop working when they punch out of work.
4) teachers often have to spend more time in college than a doctor. no, i didnt believe it at first either. of course this is only in some state requirements, and private primary and secondary schools dont work the same way. so why are doctors, businessmen, and politicians respected more than teachers? prescription stampers, thiefs, and liers? because of anti-intellectualism actually, but that will be a different rant, i mean post.
5) as ive said, teachers make nothing. so if you want to make money, become a businessman or doctor. if you want to help humanity, become a volunteer: join the peace core, or become a teacher. these people joined not for money of course, but soley because they had a vision to change the world, one person at a time.
and what about that mailman? they "work" 10 hours a day, according to the news yesterday. but ive seen them. no matter how hard they try, they finish all their mail in 2 hours. and so they sit on a bench outside for the rest of the 6 hours. then they go back to the post office to get in some overtime. and its a political patronage job anyway, unlike the merocratic world of acedemia. do you think any mailman has lost sleep worrying if they lost mail? and did they become one because they wanted to help people?
the problem is probably that all those bad students that hated school grew up and became politicians, businessmen, and other people of power and wealth. and now they dictate society.
School is just daycare for an industrial machine in this country.
i know i sound bitter. but i only mourn for america. why cant people uderstand that the children are our future? do you think you will live forever?
故善人者，不善人之師﹔
不善人者，善人之資 。
不貴其師，不愛其資 ，
雖智大迷，是謂要妙 。
Good people teach people who aren't good yet.
The the less good are the makings of the good.
An one who doesn't respect a teacher
or cherish a student
may be clever, but has gone astray.
There's a deep mystery here.
Virtue 27:7
20050818
de mac. stratechuk
i know its been half a year. but inspiration just struck.
so here in rebuttle to the following statement: youre doing the Hunter student thing again..."dont force your beliefs on me, i know he killed someone" (he was commenting on how we always argue obviously mute issues, in this case that morals are relative)
well, since when was murder just a moral issue. its also something called illegal. now masturbating is not illegal, but some think its immoral. so if you sacrifice someone to *****[censored] because they masturbated, and thus sinned violating god's law, then you could be accused of forcing your views on another. but pointing your finger at a murderer isn't because its more than immoral, it violates man's law.
and if you think thats arguing extremes, what do you call claiming Hunter students would argue killing isn't immoral.
i know it isnt airtight, but i dropped out of debate a while ago (it was all about competition, not cooperation, and so conflicted with my beliefs, how ironic). and i lied, i would totally argue the immorality of killing is relative and depends on the circumstances.
i mean if i was quicker on my toes, 6 months ago after he said "...killed someone" i totally should have said "in self defense"
so here in rebuttle to the following statement: youre doing the Hunter student thing again..."dont force your beliefs on me, i know he killed someone" (he was commenting on how we always argue obviously mute issues, in this case that morals are relative)
well, since when was murder just a moral issue. its also something called illegal. now masturbating is not illegal, but some think its immoral. so if you sacrifice someone to *****[censored] because they masturbated, and thus sinned violating god's law, then you could be accused of forcing your views on another. but pointing your finger at a murderer isn't because its more than immoral, it violates man's law.
and if you think thats arguing extremes, what do you call claiming Hunter students would argue killing isn't immoral.
i know it isnt airtight, but i dropped out of debate a while ago (it was all about competition, not cooperation, and so conflicted with my beliefs, how ironic). and i lied, i would totally argue the immorality of killing is relative and depends on the circumstances.
i mean if i was quicker on my toes, 6 months ago after he said "...killed someone" i totally should have said "in self defense"
modernity test
how to tell if a person is true gen-y (natralized included): scrolling down is considered moving the page up.
it works, trust me. im sure youve seen a test-negative by now.
mine was my grandmother.
it works, trust me. im sure youve seen a test-negative by now.
mine was my grandmother.
Urbs
in ancient times, the romans used a word in their native language (latin) called urbs. this meant city. but there also was a very special usage of the word, now connotated by the capitalized Urbs. this meant rome of course. in english Urbs might be written as The City.
but now Urbs is no longer rome. the modern rome is probably New York, the most populous city of the only superpower. we like to say we're the capital of earth (think un); well actually it might me only me who likes to say that. its also a financial capital, like rome was. its just so cosmopolitan, which totally means diverse, open, and friendly of course ;). and people arent obese like everyone else, because you dont drive everywhere here.
maybe one day 上 海 will be Urbs. but not to everybody yet.
but now Urbs is no longer rome. the modern rome is probably New York, the most populous city of the only superpower. we like to say we're the capital of earth (think un); well actually it might me only me who likes to say that. its also a financial capital, like rome was. its just so cosmopolitan, which totally means diverse, open, and friendly of course ;). and people arent obese like everyone else, because you dont drive everywhere here.
maybe one day 上 海 will be Urbs. but not to everybody yet.
fact: new yorkers don't talk S59.05-14.6
in the south people might strike up a conversation with a complete stranger, but here in The City we don't even like talking to our bus driver. thats why we invented the metrocard that records transfer data, so you dont have to ask for a transfer slip.
20050812
from The Chronicle of Higher Education (S53.05-8)
Elite Private High Schools Serve as 'Feeder System' Into Top Colleges, Magazine Reports
By RICHARD MORGAN
Despite increased emphasis on student diversity, "a college feeder system is alive and well in America" wherein students at elite private high schools are "spoon-fed" tips on how to get into the Ivy League, according to a report published in the September issue of Worth magazine.
The magazine reviewed four years of freshman classes at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale Universities from the 1998-2001 high-school graduating classes and determined that less than 3 percent of all high schools in the United States -- 930 out of 31,700 -- had four or more students attend those universities. The magazine then ranked those feeder high schools by the percentage of their graduating classes that ended up at one of those three universities -- the "ivy elite" as the report calls them.
Private schools monopolized the rankings, with 94 of the top 100 feeder schools coming from the private sector. The report also compiled a separate list of the top 50 public schools; the lowest-ranking of those placed 294th on the overall list.
The report says that private schools have a number of advantages, including stronger, more-personal relationships with college admissions officers. As an example, the dean of Harvard College, Harry R. Lewis, is a trustee at Roxbury Latin School, a Massachusetts prep school that ranked as the No. 1 feeder school in the country with 21.11 percent of its students attending Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. (The 100th-ranked feeder school, St. Mark's School of Texas, a private school in Dallas, admitted an average of 4.31 percent of its students into those three universities.)
According to Worth, the top feeder schools also have an advantage in the ratio of students to college counselors. Elite private schools provide one counselor for every 40 to 60 students, according to the report, while at public schools the average is 490 students per counselor.
The fact that parents pay for private school -- and are therefore more likely to be able to afford private-college costs -- also was cited in the magazine's report as part of the elite "pipeline." The top 10 feeder schools ranged in annual costs from $14,000 at Roxbury to $24,115 at the fourth-ranked Groton School, which is also in Massachusetts.
In describing the "elaborate dance" among elite private schools and colleges, Worth cites a case in which a student at Phillips Academy, in Massachusetts, had been accepted by Harvard under its early-admission plan, but also wanted to apply to Princeton, his parents' alma mater. According to the magazine, Phillips counselors at first told the student that he had to attend Harvard, even though its acceptance was nonbinding. The students' parents had to persuade the school to allow their son to apply to Princeton.
In another case, the Worth report says that admissions officers from Amherst College visited the 39th-ranked feeder school -- the Lawrenceville School, in New Jersey -- to critique students' admissions essays before the essays were sent. Paul S. Statt, a spokesman for Amherst, declined to comment on the claim, saying that he could neither confirm nor deny Worth's "vague" reference.
Worth gathered the information using the "facebook" freshman directories of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale to track down the new students' high schools. The full report is available online at the magazine's Web site.
The magazine's top 10 feeder schools, all of which are private, and the percentages of their graduating classes who attended either Harvard, Princeton, or Yale:
1. Roxbury Latin School, West Roxbury, Mass.; 21.11 percent.
2. Brearley School, New York; 20.90 percent.
3. Collegiate School, New York; 20.00 percent.
4. Groton School, Groton, Mass.; 17.86 percent.
5. Dalton School, New York; 17.58 percent.
6. Spence School, New York; 17.16 percent.
7. Horace Mann School, the Bronx, N.Y.; 16.77 percent.
8. Winsor School, Boston; 16.74 percent.
9. Milton Academy, Milton, Mass.; 15.84 percent.
10. Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass.; 15.68 percent.
The highest-ranking public feeder schools, with their overall ranking and the percentages of their graduating classes who attended either Harvard, Princeton, or Yale:
59. Princeton High School, Princeton, N.J.; 6.30 percent.
71. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, Alexandria, Va.; 5.89 percent.
81. Scarsdale High School, Scarsdale, N.Y.; 4.91 percent.
87. Bronxville High School, Bronxville, N.Y.; 4.71 percent.
90. Millburn High School, Millburn, N.J.; 4.64 percent.
101. University of Illinois Laboratory High School, Urbana, Ill.; 4.26 percent.
102. Academy for Advancement of Science and Technology, Hackensack, N.J.; 4.21 percent.
120. Stuyvesant High School, New York; 3.67 percent.
142. Weston High School, Weston, Mass.; 3.22 percent.
why i disagree
the christians think god is forgiving, the muslims merciful, the jews jealous. but i believe there are many paths to God, and that all of the correct views (God needing a human soul every day for the sun to rise not being one of them) are at heart. these views are different, and i explain that with the fact that they are not one of the afore mentioned views when taken literally.
i do not disagree with the views, but with our interpretations. here's why:
天 地 不 仁 ， 以 萬 物 為 芻 狗 。
Heaven and Earth aren't humane.
To them the ten thousand things are straw dogs.
God cannot be personified, except metaphorically to promote understanding. Heaven cannot feel human emotions because they are not human, are they? Assigning these emotions is just meant to help the disciple understand how God works, but they shouldn't be taken literally.
i do not disagree with the views, but with our interpretations. here's why:
天 地 不 仁 ， 以 萬 物 為 芻 狗 。
Heaven and Earth aren't humane.
To them the ten thousand things are straw dogs.
God cannot be personified, except metaphorically to promote understanding. Heaven cannot feel human emotions because they are not human, are they? Assigning these emotions is just meant to help the disciple understand how God works, but they shouldn't be taken literally.
openers
comparison of the first few opening lines of the two most popular religions, then one more (guess which!)...
道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。
無名天地之始﹔有名萬物之母。
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
(Genesis 1:1-2)
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;
Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
Master of the Day of Judgment.
Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
Show us the straight way,
The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.
(Al-Fatiha)
The way you can go isn't the real way.
The name you can say isn't the real name.
Heaven and earth begin in the unnamed:
name's the mother of the ten thousand things.
(Virtue 1:1-2)
Well, one talks of God's creation of the universe, the other an introduction seemingly in praise of Allah, the third about some philosophical shit. But of course, you say. The first two are religions, but Taoism is 'just' a philosophy. But take a closer look at the last two lines. Just like Genesis, it too speaks of the creation of earth and the heavens.
(if any extreamists are reading this, please don't kill me, I'm not a zionist, I don't support the war in Iraq, and I believe in Allah too, just not under the same Name, and not in the same Way as you might)
א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם.
بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلْعَـٰلَمِينَ
ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
مَـٰلِكِ يَوْمِ ٱلدِّينِ
إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ
ٱهْدِنَا ٱلصِّرَ ٰط ٱلْمُسْتَقِيمَ
صِرَ ٰطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ لْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ ٱلضَّاۤلِّينَ
ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם.
بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلْعَـٰلَمِينَ
ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
مَـٰلِكِ يَوْمِ ٱلدِّينِ
إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ
ٱهْدِنَا ٱلصِّرَ ٰط ٱلْمُسْتَقِيمَ
صِرَ ٰطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ لْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ ٱلضَّاۤلِّينَ
道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。
無名天地之始﹔有名萬物之母。
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
(Genesis 1:1-2)
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;
Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
Master of the Day of Judgment.
Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
Show us the straight way,
The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.
(Al-Fatiha)
The way you can go isn't the real way.
The name you can say isn't the real name.
Heaven and earth begin in the unnamed:
name's the mother of the ten thousand things.
(Virtue 1:1-2)
Well, one talks of God's creation of the universe, the other an introduction seemingly in praise of Allah, the third about some philosophical shit. But of course, you say. The first two are religions, but Taoism is 'just' a philosophy. But take a closer look at the last two lines. Just like Genesis, it too speaks of the creation of earth and the heavens.
(if any extreamists are reading this, please don't kill me, I'm not a zionist, I don't support the war in Iraq, and I believe in Allah too, just not under the same Name, and not in the same Way as you might)
20050808
hubris
this is what conservatives bring out against technology. but what is hubris? lets start with "thinking you are a god." is this necessarily the same as "playing god?"
actually, i think it can be, as i agree with both definitions. i like to look at hubris as "thinking you know the will of God." the other two could be generalizations, or maybe just shorter ways of stating this.
The Book of Virtue asks in chapter 73, "who will interpret the judgment of heaven?" (Virtue 2:73) this is hubris. the arrogance to claim you (and you alone) can do things in god's name. exploiting god for ligitimacy. god is not a tool!
so i agree with the conservatives. hubris does play an important part in the debate. but it is not the scientists who are guilty of hubris. it is not the scientists who are playing god, but the conservatives. they are the ones who say they know what god hates, they know the divine law. they think they can wield god's judgment? to have the arrogance to think you can dole out divine judgement as if you were god himself. hubris indeed!
S49.05-4
actually, i think it can be, as i agree with both definitions. i like to look at hubris as "thinking you know the will of God." the other two could be generalizations, or maybe just shorter ways of stating this.
The Book of Virtue asks in chapter 73, "who will interpret the judgment of heaven?" (Virtue 2:73) this is hubris. the arrogance to claim you (and you alone) can do things in god's name. exploiting god for ligitimacy. god is not a tool!
so i agree with the conservatives. hubris does play an important part in the debate. but it is not the scientists who are guilty of hubris. it is not the scientists who are playing god, but the conservatives. they are the ones who say they know what god hates, they know the divine law. they think they can wield god's judgment? to have the arrogance to think you can dole out divine judgement as if you were god himself. hubris indeed!
S49.05-4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
