Mind Vomit #1

School has started, and this is probably the heaviest workload I've ever had. I need to read three to six books a week, plus around 150 pages of articles or more, plus 30-100 pages in text books, plus write two articles a week, plus keep up with Economics homework. Virtually all free time is spent reading and taking notes. You can probably already tell I both love and hate the situation.

"My head is full of thoughts, my ears are full of stars..."

I'm learning and reading a lot of interesting stuff, and I want to share it, but the act of forcing it into coherent and cogent processes is a bit beyond my capacity while I'm studying and then past my interest when I'm not. The neverending paradox with blogging I've found. So I give you Mind Vomits, hopefully encouraging some discussion, maybe helping me arrive at new thoughts, and maybe just being silly.

First, I give you the idea of "Heritage." The dictionary gives a woefully dull definition involving inheritance that has little to do with the emotional and psychological connotations of the word. Try this one:

"Heritage is that part of the past which we select in the present of contemporary purposes, be they economic, cultural, political or social." (Graham, et al)

See, History does not equal The Past. Historians are not chroniclers in that they objectively write down This Happened, followed by That, ad infinitum.
For one thing, that would be so wretchedly BORING. What historians generate are "historical documents," that is, something about the past. This does not need to be in writing. Museums, artifacts, highway signs, tours, lectures...there really is no difference between academic and public history, whatever the elitists will tell you. And these historical documents much often have more to do with the time period in which they are written than they do with the time period they are written ABOUT.

I think that people have an impression that some are "outside" of their environment. What springs to mind is philosophers, historians and religious writers. I think we work under the presupposition that such people are transcendent, that their circumstances do not touch them. This is easy to understand when you think of how many of our underlying beliefs stem from such individuals. People want to believe their religion is The Truth, and that is much more difficult to swallow if one thinks it was influenced by events thousands of years ago. It stops being so universal then.

But everyone has an argument and the way things are interpreted now is not the same as they will be ten years from now, regardless of the event in question.

Public Historians, those that work outside a classroom or lecture hall or research room think that Academic Historians (those that work INSIDE all those places) live in an ivory tower, with little connection to the real world. Academic Historians think Public Historians are a bunch of crazy SCA/Reenactment buffs out there making them look bad.
Okay, so it's really not that hostile (usually), but there is certainly a perceived difference, which is unfortunate because in the end, they are doing much the same thing.

So that's History 493: Public History.




Intellectual History is the one that is going to kill me. Tons of very dense reading and I'm not sure I'm always thinking about the concepts in the "correct" way. In fact, as I type, I should be reading a hundred pages in my text book. >.>

But a certain concept, a certain way of thinking, what we would call "a climate of opinion" or a zeitgeist has got me thinking. This is called the Great Chain of Being. It is the notion that all of creation falls along a continuum from least perfect to most perfect. Not that anything CAN be perfect, simply more perfect than others. Plato wrote of Matter and Form. Matter was what we perceived with our senses, while Form was where Truth resided, where the real essence of creation was. Aristotle claimed this made him an escapist, but the idea of imperceptible essence is a long perpetuated one. Later, this notion would be Christianized into the Great Chain of Being as it was understood during the Renaissance. Now the continuum was from most material to most spiritual, with Hell being the most materialistic thing (it was at the center of the Earth at the time too) and God being the most spiritual.

As you can imagine, artists LOVE this idea.



One draw was that there is an "everything in its place" mentality, which makes the universe nice and orderly. Of course, it also says that humans are teh uber, and reinforces the notion of domination over the rest of the world, but it meant no one had to wonder about their place in the world, at least on a cosmological scale.



This led me to ponder some elementary but fundamental lines of thinking.

Is the concept of a raison d'etre or "reason for being" or purpose of existence, or whatever way you'd like to contrive it...incompatible with free will?

Can we have a purpose but be required to find it for ourselves?

If we did know it, could we choose not to do it or is it tied into who we ARE, and to not fulfill it would be to stop being ourselves?

If we chose not to fulfill it, would that be considered sinfully wrong?



Obviously, on some level, this is a theological question, dependent on your view about a personal Creator. Maybe our function is dictated by our circumstances. I think most people prefer to think they are here for a reason.

So that's Intellectual History. We're going to be reading Nietchze, Darwin and Freud soon. Be afraid.

Finally, there is History of the Religion in Early America, or How the White Man and the Native Went Like Whoa Over Each Other's Faith.
Right now ,we are reading a biography of a Mohawk from Canada who became a Jesuit. She is actually up for sainthood still, which I think is pretty cool (the process of canonization has always fascinated me). She died at 24, it always seems a prerequisite for holiness, dying young. There are some very interesting discussions about the effect of constant, immediate death on the methods of missionaries. Smallpox was still demolishing the native populations, which caused many well-meaning missionaries to despair, not only out of sympathy for the pain and suffering of the those dying and their loved ones but also for all the souls lost to eternal condemnation.
It is also interesting to note that probably the only reason Catherine Tekakwitha is NOT a saint is because at the time the idea that a "savage" could reach such a high degree of holiness was completely anathema to the understanding of the universe of her contemporaries. Savage and Saint just did not go together. There was an exception. At Catherine's side as she died were two French Jesuit missionaries. One worked fervently to get her sainted, believing her worthy even before she died. The other was far more conservative and skeptical, believing it impossible for God to choose such a person. He respected her, certainly, she was very special. But saintly? Both men knew her, both saw the same things, and both wrote biographies of her life. Same event, two different perspectives, and let me tell you, it makes a radical difference.

Well, I don't think I can justify not doing homework anymore. I hope this has raised some questions in your mind. As always, feel free to comment and we can have a conversation.

~Peace Out~

Ya rly

It becomes increasingly clear as I'm forced to delve into the adult world that people from the previous generation (or their parents) are not only somewhat isolated from mine, but downright uncomfortable with certain taken-for-granted aspects. This shouldn't be a huge surprise considering generation gaps have always caused some wariness on both sides, but it's strange when one is right in the middle of it.

For example, I was talking to one of my father's coworkers, a very nice conversational woman, about Twilight and some of my issues. We actually didn't get to talk long which was probably to her benefit because I was just about to go into my long tirade but she did make one comment that stuck with me, not only because I believe it to be wrong but also because it offense my sense of identity as a member of NetGen.

"I don't blame these books for kids not being able to spell or read. I blame that thing *points to my phone* and text messaging."

I was not able to tell her why I thought she was incorrect, so you get to hear instead.

As most of you know, I am a texting fiend. We have to have an unlimited plan because otherwise we'd spend about five hundred dollars, just for texting.
I can, however, form a coherent sentence, complete with more-or-less (depending on how much I care at the moment) correct grammar structure and few spelling errors.
This attitude isn't new. They (adults, and so on) said the same thing about instant messaging. That it was going to destroy language as we know it. And truthfully, the internet has changed the way we talk, write and even think.
Bob Salvatore said that writers now have to be more clear about who is talking in a dialogue because the readers are used to reading an instant message conversation where the speaker's name/username is displayed above their message. This needn't be seen as better or worse, it is just a changing perspective.

These arguments, to me, demonstrate a discomfort with the staples of the Internet Generation. They are similar to the arguments against web-journalism, blogging and forums. Those who are not involved frequently discredit them as invalid, sometimes with much justification, but almost always out of a sense of alienation.

But I digress.

MSN and Blackberries are not to blame for kids' inability to spell anymore than video games and Marylin Manson is to blame for them being violent. It's a cop out for parents and the school system.

I can continue texting and still be able to spell when the occasion calls for it because I had a good education, with a heavy emphasis on clear communication which encouraged proper grammar and spelling. I read a LOT of books, most of them above my age level, which exposed me to various styles of writing and a lot of "big" words. You know, those with more than two syllables.
The United States has the worst education system of any developed nation. This was a problem even before the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which just threw gasoline on the blaze. So part one of the responsibility lies there.
Part two is on the parents who consider it wholly a teacher's job to educate their children. These are the parents who don't help their kids with homework, who don't encourage them, and then get uppity when the teacher points out their child is falling behind. Where do you think children learn that sense of entitlement?
And yes, to some extent, I do blame Harry Potter and Twilight, but only a microscopic amount. I appreciate that they 'got kids to read', though I disagree that they (especially HP) 'saved literacy'. What they did was get kids to read at a perpetually fourth grade level. There are a lot of better books out there that would challenge young readers more, get them more interested and would encourage them to raise their reading level. I admit, I wouldn't be so critical if I didn't see a lot of kids who started reading Harry Potter books and then found everything else "too hard" or boring because they couldn't understand it. That isn't the series' fault at all, it just diminishes my appreciation for its contribution to the writing world.

Technology is always going to be an easy scapegoat because there's a correlation. Young people use more technology. Young people have X problems. Well, OBVIOUSLY the technology must be causing X problems. This is a logical fallacy.
I don't doubt that everything mentioned is a contributing factor. Writing online all the time CAN (and probably does) make kids lazy. I actually think that the way text messaging and things like Twitter have altered language simply shows its versatility and adaptability. It shows people thinking outside the box. Now, once they are back IN the box, yes, they have to talk like the other Boxites.

My point is that even if the internet and all its byproducts HAVE degraded grammar and spelling, it would not have been able to do so if children's grasp of those subjects wasn't already weak. If they knew better BEFORE they got online, it wouldn't matter as much. We need to improve our schools first (and possibly issue parenting licenses :P) and if there are still problems after, we can deal with them, too. In the end, the buck stops with those in authority, the parents and the teachers. Funny how they are the first to condemn then, isn't it?

Eff you, Samuel Clemens

A common staple of The Internet, especially from the nerd-sector, those proud members of NetGen is the Nerd/Geek/Gamer Webcomic. Love them, hate them, argue over them, people have their faves, their disses and there's an entire subculture built around this.

It has reached the point where you click a link, an advert and then think 'Oh great, another one'. This crossed my mind when I first saw Homebr00d. And to be honest, it really is just Fanboys, but not quite as endearing (or professional, lol) and without a decent female character. But I read the entire archive (there aren't that many, it's pretty new), and I walked away with a conclusion.

It does not MATTER how original a webcomic is. Well, it does. Obviously you don't want clones. But I would never tell an aspiring writer/artist to not give it a shot simply because the idea "has been done before". For one thing, most of the ones I'm referring to are just doing this as a side project. They have other lives, jobs, so they don't need to take themselves so seriously here.

I've often wondered what Gabe and Tycho think about being the standard. Virtually any comic you read will reference them in some way and will DEFINITELY be compared. I don't think this bothers them, nor do I think they feel remotely threatened. They're freaking Penny Arcade, no one is going to usurp their position, they occupy the highest echelon of webcomic greatness.

It would be like Tolkein being offended for every fantasy story that ever comes out.
How many of us have read a book, especially in the sci-fi/fantasy genre and thought 'well I've read that idea before'? Sure, it may bother us sometimes, especially if it's just a carbon copy but we accept that there are certain norms that will probably pop out a lot and that is okay. You know why? Because we LIKE them. Homeb00d didn't offer a lot I didn't already know (though there were a few thought provokers that I'd never considered before) but I'm glad I read it, and will probably keep reading it because 1) I want to be supportive and 2) it's still funny. And more importantly, relatable. That's what we read these for right? There's something kind of perversely pleasurable in reading a joke you know many people wouldn't get. It's a community experience, it makes you feel special and part of something at the same time. Plus it says that out there, people experience and think about the same things you do: Arguments about PiratesVNinjas, RROD, DCMA laws and so on.

So 1) stop being elitist about webcomics, let the guys do their thing and if you don't want to read it then don't, and 2) feel free to go out and make some of your own! Who cares if maybe it's been done before? You would have to go out and read every single comic ever to be sure that a joke, a story, a plot HADN'T been done before and good luck with that. Samuel Clemens said that originality is dead. Well, if that was the case then, the flies have landed and the maggots have left the corpse.
So be free! Do it because you want to.