Some Administrative Work

What? I can't come up with clever Titles all the time!

Okay, first, best laid plans of mice and men, eh? I'd really like to get back into blogging because besides enjoying writing, I feel it helps my academic work by encouraging me to explain what I'm learning to people outside my class. We all know we learn by teaching, right? It helps me focus and take really good notes, because I will be talking about it here later. So that's in the positive column. However, I'm also acutely aware that I have a lot of reading to do, a lot of studying, and not a ton of time. So there will undoubtedly be days I want to write where I'm simply unable to, and then will lose the drive. So here's hoping.

Secondly, while I always appreciate when people tell me in person or via some message that they enjoy something I wrote, or they give their opinion on it, I would really prefer if people posted in the comments section. It's what it's there for and it makes it look like I'm popular >.> Don't judge me for wanting to be internet famous.

Alright, I will probably be doing a mind vomit later today, after homeworking, but I wanted throw out some thoughts stemming from a conversation I had with a friend. He was lamenting the loss of the 'Renaissance Man.' The jack-of-all-trades, brilliant in many fields, not bound to a single discipline. Leonardo Da Vinci is, of course, considered the paragon of such individuals, but all the other Ninja Turtles could certainly be considered, as could Newton and Galileo, among others. Now, we are apparently without, as our society does not allow for them.

I disagree with this dichotomy for several reasons. First, there's the nostalgia that always comes with considering the past, especially that which is most removed. We love the idea of warrior-poets, trabadour-knights, those who were "classically" trained in a variety of arts. Of course, we can have these romantic conceptions because we're not there. We don't if they consider themselves the same way we consider them. So I posit that these well-rounded folk are not so different from us.
Which brings us to my second issue: the notion that they are exceptional. Don't mistake me, Da Vinci, Galileo, Newton, they were brilliant men. Fundamentally altered the world as we know it, no doubt. I do not, however, subscribe to the idea that our society systematically discourages us from being well-versed in a variety of fields.
It's easy to see where such an idea comes from. After all, economics is based on the concept of specialization. Jane can make 12 sweaters or 4 pairs of socks in the same amount of time while Jim can make 4 sweaters and 12 pairs of socks. Sure, both could do it, but society as a whole would benefit most if Jane made sweaters and Jim made socks. Trade, exchange, barter, all based on this idea. so yes, we are encouraged to focus on one field. That doesn't mean that people can't expend energy on other fields as well. Many people have hobbies, which are completely independent of their vocation, do they not? If we are separated from those men of the 16th and 17th century, it is more likely by how we fill our time. I'm not saying that leisurely activities are inherently bad. I play video games, watch movies, read books both deep and vapid. But if we were really interested in a variety of studies, we would pursue them. What they had and we (in general) lack, is drive, focus. That is an individual flaw, not the fault of society.
Furthermore, I don't think we do too badly. Think about our general education system. Yes, it is flawed, no argument. But students are exposed to a variety of sciences, right? They do chemistry, biology, physics...exposure let's them see what grabs their interest. It is unfortunate we do not teach philosophy until secondary-higher education as rhetoric and logic do not seem to be highly valued by the Powers-That-Be, but you ARE required to take a bit to get a college degree. We REQUIRE people to try different subjects, to study things that they may not think interest them, to make sure they get a wide range of exposure. Not as rigorous as Jesuit schools of the Counter/Catholic Reformation, but the effort is made.

After all, our idea of the Renaissance man as being free, not tied down to a career is already flawed. All of these people had day jobs. Da Vinci and Galileo both worked in ballistics. They helped their respective governments make war more effectively by working out the science of things like cannons. Newton was a professor. It seems we have the idea of the starving scientist, someone who rejects the materialistic/capitalist notions of work and salary to pursue internally-motivated studies. I don't think they would have conceived of themselves that way. After all, they had to pay the bills too. The only ones would would not need to maintain some sort of 'normal' vocation would be those sponsored by the government, such as Tycho Brahe, the first royal astronomer. They still had a job to do, however, and we tend to look down upon those paid by the government, as if the politics stains the science. And of course it does, but trying to separate politics from science would be like trying to disentangle a knot of yarn with your teeth.

These were great men. But nobody forces us to not emulate them. Nobody says we can't pursue lots of different studies, try to better ourselves academically, intellectually, artistically, martially...But if you don't think you can, don't blame society or capitalism or anything else for it, save your own lack of motivation.

~
PS: I'm well aware that circumstances do not always allow us to pursue what we'd like. Economic, political, social issues get in the way. I don't wish to say that it is solely the individual's fault. Things happen, go wrong. It is just that in my personal experience, people blame the system for things that it does not enforce. Okay, disclaimer over.

Secondary Note

Somewhat attached to my previous post.

In my economics class (which you'll notice I didn't go into a lot, mostly because I hate economics. It's an extremely important study, no doubt, it's also totally not how I think and...well, you get the idea), my teacher makes certain statements which could be considered either "positive" or "normative."

A positive statement is simply relaying some factual information. 2+2=4 is a positive statement.

Normative statements are made based on value judgments. "Lower taxes is the best way to improve the economy" is a normative statement. It is based on opinion and sets of values. That doesn't make it invalid, but the two should not be conflated.

Both kinds of statements can be WRONG. Correctness is irrelevant, although for normative statements, "correctness" is usually a matter of perspective.

Perhaps it is because in the Humanities, teachers have to walk on such eggshells, I am used to professors apologizing or putting disclaimers on what they say. Yet my economics teacher will just throw stuff out there, and the reason is this:
To him, it is NOT a normative statement. It is a mathematical equation. Now sure, if you wanted to argue the significance, or the consequences, I'm sure he'd probably say it depends, but for the most part, I don't think it occurs to him to question what he's saying.

In my experience, the Humanities (that is, anthropology, human services, history, philosophy, and to a lesser extent, sociology and psychology) place a much greater emphasis on questioning one's presuppositions than any other field. I'm not sure what it all means, but it's something I'm going to be watching for more now.

Also, math students scare me.

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~

They Who Serve Who Only Stand And Wait

Recently, I have been allowed to read books again, which is glorious. I have found myself drawn to some nonfiction. I mentioned this to an older acquaintance and they responded with 'Oh, I'm so glad you've grown out of those silly fantasy novels and are reading big kid books' (paraphrased). This bothered me to no end, but I made no issue of it at the time, knowing my cause already lost. I put it aside for awhile until the multi-talented Sean PC posted an observation on Facebook, which I'm reprinting here.

"...has an interesting observation. When a relationship has ended, and a person dwells on the feelings of their broken heart, after a certain amount of time everyone thinks they should get up and get over it and move on. “S/He wasn't worth it, anyway.”

But if someone moves on without seeming to care, everyone thinks they're a bit cold hearted, and wonder if they really cared in the first place - and may even suggest that they take a little time to mourn the relationship if just for its significance. Is this a double standard? And what is the time limit someone is allowed to mourn the past and ... See Morewhat if? And then there's what we are asking these people to do, and our views on emotions in general: How much significance do we allow our emotions? Are we to slip on a mask of good cheer and congeniality when we have "dwelled too long"? If we seclude ourselves because we make others uncomfortable, or are forced into seclusion because our display makes others avoid us, time spent too long there make our friends wish us out of it - but happy. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is the purpose of the stage - so that while we go about our daily lives with a social mask on, we may be ourselves in character, and allow our audiences see and feel what it might be like if people were free to be themselves."

My attention was predominantly to his supposition that the stage allows us to express what our culture does not. I wholeheartedly agree, but I would expand that notion to include basically all forms of fiction.

The further separated, the more distanced from reality, the more we are willing to open our minds to the possibility.

Consider the following scenario:
You have strong beliefs about the environment. You consider actions of our government and the corporations that call a lot of the shots to be irresponsible if not downright immoral. You believe our culture needs to change from one of consumption to one of careful stewardship.
Sure, you could write about it, try to convince others. But likely you would be labeled and then categorically ignored as a liberal, an extremist, a tree-hugger. No one wants to be told that what they are doing is wrong, that they may have to give up their comfortable lifestyle.

SO....spends billions of dollars and make a movie set on a different world where the alternative lifestyle is represented by individuals who are tall and blue and catlike and suddenly, BAM, everyone wants to hear what you have to say. It helps if everything is shiny and wellmade and stuff blows up too.

Undoubtedly some people were put off by the social subtext in Avatar. I was at points. But how many people do you think walked out at least THINKING about some of the questions it raised? Probably enough that James Cameron feels pretty good about it. The message didn't change, but put it in a way that people feel separated from, that makes them feel comfortable and you will reach a much bigger audience.

Do I think that was the point of the movie? No. The point of the movie was to be entertaining. It was intended to make money. But you know, while you're at it...

I've mentioned before that the Joker is a powerful character because we know he's *not real*. We can explore the moral and philosophical question he raises because he's OVER THERE. Fantastical fiction is therefore perhaps the greatest vehicle for philosophical discussion. My big brother said he thinks philosophy is dead. I disagree. I think it just changed addresses.

There is of course, some major differences. In a fictional setting, one is allowed to artificially limit options and circumstances. One could argue that it is easier for the Na'vi to live as they do because as far as we know there's only 20,000 or so, whereas on our planet, we have 7 billion. There are some things that are simply unfeasible for us to accomplish given geography, size and population. These issues should not be pushed aside, and they are valid concerns, but just thinking about them raises more discussion which could potentially lead to some positive outcomes.

This of course, raises a different issue.
What is the definition of propaganda? The connotations change over cultures. We generally consider it a bad thing here, yet the difference between propaganda, opinion and education is fine and fuzzy. Other cultures don't consider it a bad thing, because they don't feel that stigma of overt attempts at manipulation that we do. Is it only propaganda if we feel this attempt? That can't be right because guaranteed attempts are made that we allow to slide by because they are ineffective. Is it only propaganda if it IS effective then? Well then we would call it education.

Acting perhaps gives us an even more direct example than reading, as we are active participants instead of passive consumers. After all, isn't a staple of acting that it is permissible to say/do certain things because it is not YOU ACTUALLY DOING THEM? If people were unwilling to take this step, we'd have much fewer villains (and people would be that much more frightening who chose to be so o.o). We are clearly capable of suspending our own personal identity for the sake of the Story.

What does this say about the responsibility of the playwright? The actors? If they are indeed, not simply acting out a shallow tale of conflict and closure, but in fact presenters of ideas and concepts for pondering and reflection, does that change how they behave? Would they try harder? Probably not, being professionals, but maybe it would help them get into character by thinking about it.

So the next time someone comes up and asks why you waste your time with fantasy, science fiction, movies of clear non-reality, ask them if the messages contained therein are any lowlier or baser than the latest romantic comedy or stoner flick. Ask them which is more realistic, the emotions felt by the Hobbits or by the cast of Grey's Anatomy? Ask which is more palatable, yet able to bring up emotions of loss and duty...Star Trek or 24? What movie nailed right to the point on issues of race and responsibility more poignantly in recent history than District 9?

And then ask them why we only have fantasy to discuss such things.

The fact that they involve lasers, giant sandworms, aliens and gold-bikini clad princesses does not make them any less legitimate forms of expression. And their very distance from our reality makes us freer to explore issues too difficult or socially unacceptable to delve into in other ways.

The ups and downs of Change

There is something I've noticed when it comes to explaining to people what I do as a historian. Or rather, what historians do in general, as I can only count myself as one in the loosest of terms.

The issue revolves around the term 'revisionist'.

To some, revisionism is a bad thing, and usually this stems from Presentism...that is, forcing or overlaying our values on individuals in the past and interpreting their actions through our current system of values and understanding. This is what's known as Bad History. As in, you're doing it wrong. For example, Lincoln wrote in his journals about a close friend of his, recounting tales of falling asleep nearby, and so on. Dumb people wanted to interpret this as Lincoln being a closet homosexual, ignoring all evidence to the contrary (though his wife WAS pretty crazy). That's because in our society, guys don't talk like that, and they certainly don't describe cuddling with their friends.
But one, they also didn't have internal heating like we do. I would not be surprised if people got in close in all sorts of ways we'd raise our eyebrows at just to keep warm. Secondly, their notions of masculinity would be quite different from ours, so this would likely not be seen as any kind of threat to his hetero-ness. Third, he was like 12. I mean, really.

It is understandable why people would be wary of scholars and their historical 'discoveries' given some of this unfortunate mishaps. They did the same thing with Richard I...assuming that because he did not have children, he must have not lain with his wife, Berengaria. This is in direct contradiction to the NUMEROUS accounts of Richard raping and pillaging pretty much everywhere he went. The man liked the wenches.

The downside of having this wholly negative view of alternative interpretations however, is that it blinds us to the true point of revising.

When you write a paper and you find that there is better evidence, or a better way to put forth your argument, you revise your paper. That's just part of good scholarship. History and science and to some extent, philosophy is the same. People sometimes criticize scientists for changing their explanations but I have always viewed this as a strength of those doctrines. After all, if science was always so dogmatic, we would never have an Newton or an Einstein, people who fundamentally challenged our understanding by being wiling to let go of formerly preconceived notions.

From a religious point of view, is it not true that we interpret sacred texts differently now than we did fifty, a hundred, five hundred years ago?

Change can be good when it is an improvement. But of course, change is also frightening, which is where individuals truly become wary of new historical evidence, especially regarding people they admire and respect.

First, one must look at what 'evidence' means. Historians are like detectives, piecing together what was from what remains. This is, by definitions, always an incomplete picture, otherwise we wouldn't still be doing it. As new pieces come in, sometimes in contrast to previous pieces, they are evaluated on their strengths. Primary versus secondary sources. Analyzing why the sources were created (for example, a diary is a great primary source, but one must keep in mind that if the individual knew the diary would be read, how might that affect his or her writing?) and so on.

All nations have heroes. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. And the flaws, the sins, the mistakes that they made does not mean they are bad people.
Humans are multi-layered creatures, we have both good and bad, we make decisions in ignorance and are judged by those with the benefit of hindsight.

George Washington was not, I believe, a bad person. He did, however, own slaves, something I consider morally wrong. You could argue that this was just 'how it was at the time', but that is not a valid argument to me. For as long as there has been slavery, there have been those who stood against it. There is ample evidence of those, even during the times of Washington and Jefferson making arguments and protesting slavery. They would have certainly been exposed to such ideas.
More importantly to me personally, things are morally wrong regardless of time or society. Some things more so than others obviously. I wouldn't call those who choose not to eat certain food silly because it WOULD be wrong for them, according to their beliefs. But there are some things where you would be hard pressed to prove to me it is okay, and almost all of these involve evils against other people. Slavery, rape, murder...it was wrong 200 years earlier, it's wrong in any other culture. At least, in my moral code, and it would take a pretty strong argument to convince me otherwise.

But there are people who believer we shouldn't talk about Washington's slaves, or how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during Civil War (though that made much more sense, given the circumstances) because that would tarnish them somehow.
The problem with this is you have no stripped these individuals of what makes them great. They are not great icons, or great statues. They are great MEN and men are full of errors. It is DESPITE these faults that we consider them great because they are so clearly human like us.

By changing that, we also deprive children of the sense that despite their own faults or errors of the past, they can achieve.

~~~

The second problem, which comes up a lot in the education sphere of history is making it one dimensional. Everyone has an argument. Everyone is pushing something. This doesn't have to have some nefarious agenda, but we all believe or interpret stuff a certain way and of course this will affect how we talk, even subconsciously.

Unfortunately, I just remembered I have Christmas shopping to do so I will go into that on our next episode. :D

Quick blurb

This is a rant. Will be short, promise.

Was watching Gotham Knight with Chaz, Tim and Andrew. Tim thinks Batman is a 'pansy' because he doesn't kill people.

I cannot begin to describe how aggravating I find this.

The irony, perhaps, the paradox of Batman is that he truly does BELIEVE in the system. He believes that everyone deserves a fair trial, that they should be judged by society and dealt with accordingly. I'm sure he agrees there are flaws within the system: bad guys let out on technicalities, the whims of human judges. All of this, however, is irrelevant. The system is there because WE put it there, because it separates us from the beasts, and is more or less what civilization rests on. The rule of law. Not the rule of might.

Batman (at least, my understanding of him) recognizes that there are those who work outside the system. Those to whom our laws don't apply because they are simply so far flung from what would be considered in the creation of laws. Sure, he takes out common criminals too but no one really pays attention to those, and in Gotham, they well established that the entire city was pass the point of the system dealing with it.

So Batman works outside, yet parallel to The System. He goes outside, fights the bad guys on the outside, and pulls them INSIDE The System. By killing them, Batman would say that democracy doesn't work, that The System is a failure and hey, everyone, just kill those think deserve it.

Batman is a hero because he confronts evil, but he does it on just terms and he does not put himself in all positions, judge, jury and executioner. That's not his role. His role is to attain those the normal law officer can't, and to make those criminals more 'available'.

He has to play by our rules, because they are OUR rules and he works for US. That's how it works.

/End Rant

A Fair Warning

As most of you know, the actual nittygritty of politics doesn't interest me. I don't usually care much about who is right or wrong. Of course it affects me, of course I take some note of the news. But what will really catch my interest is analyzing HOW people argue. What are the words they use, what are their tactics, and so on.

Recently I've heard something enough times to grate on my brain. So if you ever want to have a conversation with me, I have a request.

I don't like referring to presidential advisors and heads of the bureaucracy as 'Czars' because it just sounds dumb to me. And I don't like that both sides of the political spectrum always have problem when the other side is in power. We're a big country, it takes a lot of people to make everything work. I don't begrudge the President some help. Obama was certainly not the first, and the Republicans were certainly not the first to use the term to try to create suspicion.

That's not my issue.

If you are attempting to prove that Obama is a socialist (which of course has to mean he's the incarnation of evil right?) do NOT, I repeat NOT use the argument "Well he's appointed czars, which is a Communist term!"

You have just lost all credibility, have a nice day.

The Tsar was who the Communists overthrew (well, the Bolsheviks and other radicals anyway. Communists came later). It is pretty much the opposite of communism in just about every way (except corrupt bureaucracy which is more or less universal). Putting them together shows not only a suspension of critical thinking but a total ignorance of history, or at least a convenient smashing together of facts which only serves to prove that anything will be used to fit your preconceived notions.

There are plenty of decent, legitimate reasons to put together a case, if you feel so inclined. A lot is open to interpretation.

This is not one of those things. This is people being stupid on purpose. They may have fantastic evidence otherwise but if I hear them use this phrase (which I have...way too many times), I am going to ignore them mostly because this is a pet issue. That is admittedly close minded on my part, and if I felt they were sincere in wanting a discussion, I would probably point out the issue and move on from it, giving them the benefit of the doubt. I swear though, one word of argument, where I can tell it doesn't matter what I say since they've already made up their minds, I'm going bursar because that's just ridiculous.

So now you know, and knowing is half the battle. :D