Why does poetry annoy me?
Well... to start, it takes the carefully constructed rules of the English language and gives them the single fingered salute. As a writer, I consider it rather insulting to see a poem where the concepts of subject, verb, and object are voraciously tossed aside in favor of supposed "artistic expression." Further, when these kinds of barely intelligible spattering of phrases breeds wealth for their genius scribe, it is like seven thousand needles each penetrating sub-epidermally.
We are taught at a young age the danger of fragments. Why? Fragments do not effectively communicate an idea. They communicate that the author is purposely trying to be vague. Hide under the facade of artistic license and development of tone to a heart's extent; it is just laziness.
Also, the term: "it has multiple interpretations." Cop out.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
On Stating the Obvious
Time changes everything about a society.
Today, I examine an element of modern humor.
This would have, in no way, been funny 10 years ago. I know; I was there. And yet, here we are, and Stating The OBVIOUS is comedic gold.
Genius even. Some might say that it is the bee's knees (they would subsequently be ignored as witty rhymes are no longer funny. I wish sometimes that they never had been; let's move on though - the past, as painful as it is, must be left in its place).
As with all humor, STO takes a certain element of presentation. It requires a delivery of complete commitment, and an absolutely oblivious lack of awareness when it comes to somethings obvious-ness.
For example: imagine a sports reporter at a half time analysis. "I do believe, that as the games going right now... the team with the most points will triumph."
(The reporter is not a golf reporter - shame on you for even asking.)
STO must be used sparingly and not by immature humorists. It takes a sophisticated mind to read the audience and to place it at exactly the right moment. Otherwise, it comes out as the three stooges minus the slapstick. That's like... negative funny man! NEGATIVE.
I think the fact that this is funny hails a return to simple humor. Remember when you could just say psyche at the end of a sentence and it would be an absolute killer? I miss those days.
This is a sentence.
Today, I examine an element of modern humor.
This would have, in no way, been funny 10 years ago. I know; I was there. And yet, here we are, and Stating The OBVIOUS is comedic gold.
Genius even. Some might say that it is the bee's knees (they would subsequently be ignored as witty rhymes are no longer funny. I wish sometimes that they never had been; let's move on though - the past, as painful as it is, must be left in its place).
As with all humor, STO takes a certain element of presentation. It requires a delivery of complete commitment, and an absolutely oblivious lack of awareness when it comes to somethings obvious-ness.
For example: imagine a sports reporter at a half time analysis. "I do believe, that as the games going right now... the team with the most points will triumph."
(The reporter is not a golf reporter - shame on you for even asking.)
STO must be used sparingly and not by immature humorists. It takes a sophisticated mind to read the audience and to place it at exactly the right moment. Otherwise, it comes out as the three stooges minus the slapstick. That's like... negative funny man! NEGATIVE.
I think the fact that this is funny hails a return to simple humor. Remember when you could just say psyche at the end of a sentence and it would be an absolute killer? I miss those days.
This is a sentence.
Yoda On
I was talking earlier to someone. I told them that sometimes when I write, I do so in a way that says nothing.
Someone told me that simply by writing a word, I was in fact writing something - that there was no way to write anything without it having a meaning.
I beg to differ. Watch as I say nothing, by writing nothing:
"Nothing."
Someone told me that simply by writing a word, I was in fact writing something - that there was no way to write anything without it having a meaning.
I beg to differ. Watch as I say nothing, by writing nothing:
"Nothing."
On Chees-ITs
Oh my dear orange squares,
How you delight me with your fair according share,
Away from you I can not myself tear,
Cheese-It my dear: you are not being fair.
That was 'Ode to a Grecian Cheese-It' by Me.
I am sitting here, thinking... what makes a snack food? and what makes a good snack food excellent?
I've come up with a list of criteria.
First, the food must be accessible. This means it can be eaten anywhere at anytime with the ability to do anything else at the same time. A snack food that does not fulfill this criterion are cheet-o's. One simply is limited by the mess of cheet-o's: it sticks on your fingers and somehow propagates on everything within a six meter radius. Cheese-Its on the other hand allow for anything - even typing a ToK blog.
Second, the food must have a distinct taste. Let's face it, you are going to be eating this snack for at least 10 minutes. You can not have a taste that is so bland as to not maintain interest, nor can you be so utterly spoiled by it as to wish for no more. Unfortunately, some believe taste overtakes accessibility and therefore still eat cheet-o's - I say grow up. Cheese-Its have a taste that is simply life long. Doretos are another good example. Mike and Ikes are good... but not great as eating too many causes the tongue to lose all sense of taste for the next 24 hours.
Third, the food must be light. Food that is actually filling does not count as a snack... you can not eat it for long enough. Snack foods fill time as well as stomach, and the ratio is important. Unfortunately, too light can be a bad thing. For example: eat a rice cake. They taste delicious, but there is absolutely no sense of actual digestion. Another counter-example is cotton candy - under no circumstances should spun sugar be relied on as a snack. It must remain under the category of candy (another blog post entirely).
So there you have it. It speaks a lot to my own psyche as I see this distinction as something simply everyone must know.
I really would like to comment on...
My bowl of Cheese-Its is empty. This blog entry is done.
How you delight me with your fair according share,
Away from you I can not myself tear,
Cheese-It my dear: you are not being fair.
That was 'Ode to a Grecian Cheese-It' by Me.
I am sitting here, thinking... what makes a snack food? and what makes a good snack food excellent?
I've come up with a list of criteria.
First, the food must be accessible. This means it can be eaten anywhere at anytime with the ability to do anything else at the same time. A snack food that does not fulfill this criterion are cheet-o's. One simply is limited by the mess of cheet-o's: it sticks on your fingers and somehow propagates on everything within a six meter radius. Cheese-Its on the other hand allow for anything - even typing a ToK blog.
Second, the food must have a distinct taste. Let's face it, you are going to be eating this snack for at least 10 minutes. You can not have a taste that is so bland as to not maintain interest, nor can you be so utterly spoiled by it as to wish for no more. Unfortunately, some believe taste overtakes accessibility and therefore still eat cheet-o's - I say grow up. Cheese-Its have a taste that is simply life long. Doretos are another good example. Mike and Ikes are good... but not great as eating too many causes the tongue to lose all sense of taste for the next 24 hours.
Third, the food must be light. Food that is actually filling does not count as a snack... you can not eat it for long enough. Snack foods fill time as well as stomach, and the ratio is important. Unfortunately, too light can be a bad thing. For example: eat a rice cake. They taste delicious, but there is absolutely no sense of actual digestion. Another counter-example is cotton candy - under no circumstances should spun sugar be relied on as a snack. It must remain under the category of candy (another blog post entirely).
So there you have it. It speaks a lot to my own psyche as I see this distinction as something simply everyone must know.
I really would like to comment on...
My bowl of Cheese-Its is empty. This blog entry is done.
On Teaching Methods
There is no uniform "one way" to teach. Considering that the process of imparting knowledge is so important in modern culture, it seems rather strange that constant attempts to homogenize have gone unheeded. Granted, our curriculum is tankardly uniform and unnecessarily stringent to unnecessary topics, but the way that lethargic list is passed on is relatively up to the whim of the teacher.
The way I see it, there are several teaching styles, each with their own pros and cons. Before I get into that I would like to preface with the thought that no style is the best for every student - if it were, everyone would teach the same - and that a lot of the teacher's ability to convey goes to their personality and subject matter of the class. That being said, the styles:
1. Notes, Practice, Test: these teachers are brass tacks. You know exactly what to expect coming in to class every single day, because it is always the same. Only the topic alters every week or so to strive for complete test preparation. Students are told the answers directly; there is little room for opinion - hence why this style is so often suited to science.
2. Random Weaving Path: these teachers are deceptive. It seems like the assignments are rather useless (often are), as the thematic situation of the class winds towards the final target. Suddenly, that day is there, and with any luck the randomness actually prepared you for it. This is often an English approach.
3. Long Projects: these teachers may pretend like they are doing something day to day, but honestly, they've just assigned something due in four weeks, there are three of these large items the whole year, and nothing else in between is really necessary. These classes tend to be fun, because there is time to waste.
4. Concept, Discuss: these teachers are moderators. They introduce a topic and allow students to create conclusions amongst themselves. Sometimes this is a defense mechanism for a lack of knowledge, but when used correctly can facilitate an excellent learning environment.
5. Learn it for Yourself: these teachers are rare, and often confused with #4. They allow complete freedom and will only offer aid when approached directly. This allows the student to learn exactly as much or as little as they wish.
There are more styles, and some teachers intermingle, but these are the thoughts I have time for at the moment. Fun.
The way I see it, there are several teaching styles, each with their own pros and cons. Before I get into that I would like to preface with the thought that no style is the best for every student - if it were, everyone would teach the same - and that a lot of the teacher's ability to convey goes to their personality and subject matter of the class. That being said, the styles:
1. Notes, Practice, Test: these teachers are brass tacks. You know exactly what to expect coming in to class every single day, because it is always the same. Only the topic alters every week or so to strive for complete test preparation. Students are told the answers directly; there is little room for opinion - hence why this style is so often suited to science.
2. Random Weaving Path: these teachers are deceptive. It seems like the assignments are rather useless (often are), as the thematic situation of the class winds towards the final target. Suddenly, that day is there, and with any luck the randomness actually prepared you for it. This is often an English approach.
3. Long Projects: these teachers may pretend like they are doing something day to day, but honestly, they've just assigned something due in four weeks, there are three of these large items the whole year, and nothing else in between is really necessary. These classes tend to be fun, because there is time to waste.
4. Concept, Discuss: these teachers are moderators. They introduce a topic and allow students to create conclusions amongst themselves. Sometimes this is a defense mechanism for a lack of knowledge, but when used correctly can facilitate an excellent learning environment.
5. Learn it for Yourself: these teachers are rare, and often confused with #4. They allow complete freedom and will only offer aid when approached directly. This allows the student to learn exactly as much or as little as they wish.
There are more styles, and some teachers intermingle, but these are the thoughts I have time for at the moment. Fun.
On Cubic Regressions
This math portfolio has made me think about math - go figure.
I would like to talk about infinity.
I hate infinity.
Examine for a moment, the following situation:
A turtle leaves point A when the race starts. He is inevitably headed for point B. In order to reach point B, it is a safe assumption that the turtle must eventually cross the center point, and getting there will take some time.
That being said, we can also assume that the turtle must pass the one quarter mark, also taking time. Indeed, we can say that there are an infinity dividable set of halves, all which we must pass, and all which take time to pass.
Time x infinity = infinite time. Therefore, it takes an infinite time to move anywhere; ergo, nothing moves.
This is why I hate the concept of infinity. It is not well enough defined to be useful in practical situations. The above situation for example is solved by assuming that space/time is in fact, not infinitesimally dividable - meaning that eventually the halves stop accumulating. According to math though... WE DO NOT MOVE.
I hate infinity.
Another situation: I measure out a seven millimeter section of tape, whereas James measures seven feet. Our deep voiced math teacher asks which has a greater number of points. Well... between any distances, there is an infinite number of unique points. Therefore, there are the same number of points on a seven millimeter section as a seven foot section, or even a seven mile section - infinity. Infinity has no quantifiable characteristic of comparison. I claim that by this logic, all distance is the same.
I hate infinity.
Only obscure, unprovable physics can refute these statements. That, or you could just blindly deny the fact that distance does not exist and we can not move. Wait --- we can.
I hate infinity.
I would like to talk about infinity.
I hate infinity.
Examine for a moment, the following situation:
A turtle leaves point A when the race starts. He is inevitably headed for point B. In order to reach point B, it is a safe assumption that the turtle must eventually cross the center point, and getting there will take some time.
That being said, we can also assume that the turtle must pass the one quarter mark, also taking time. Indeed, we can say that there are an infinity dividable set of halves, all which we must pass, and all which take time to pass.
Time x infinity = infinite time. Therefore, it takes an infinite time to move anywhere; ergo, nothing moves.
This is why I hate the concept of infinity. It is not well enough defined to be useful in practical situations. The above situation for example is solved by assuming that space/time is in fact, not infinitesimally dividable - meaning that eventually the halves stop accumulating. According to math though... WE DO NOT MOVE.
I hate infinity.
Another situation: I measure out a seven millimeter section of tape, whereas James measures seven feet. Our deep voiced math teacher asks which has a greater number of points. Well... between any distances, there is an infinite number of unique points. Therefore, there are the same number of points on a seven millimeter section as a seven foot section, or even a seven mile section - infinity. Infinity has no quantifiable characteristic of comparison. I claim that by this logic, all distance is the same.
I hate infinity.
Only obscure, unprovable physics can refute these statements. That, or you could just blindly deny the fact that distance does not exist and we can not move. Wait --- we can.
I hate infinity.
On Why I Shouldn't Be Expected To Know Anything... Ever
I am on record saying that coincidence is one of the most soul-sappingly fatalistic of random occurrences. I think I should revise. I always forget during the off-season.
Quiz bowl is the MOST by range of at least six coulombs.
For those of you living under a rock (or rather, those of you who are not living under a rock, just those who don't care about really unimportant things)quiz bowl - aka academic challenge - is a competitive trivia circuit. If you've ever seen 'Mean Girls,' it's kind of like the matha-leet competition, only filled with every subject of knowledge and way less Lindsey Lohan, which is a bad thing (Screw the media! Lohan, you rock!).
At any given time throughout a given tournament, there are a total of 9 important people in the room (or 9 really unimportant people trying to hide that fact): 2 teams of four players, and one reader. Note: substitutes and whatnot do exist, but my writing flows much better without mentioning them... Woops.
These two teams will via for the chance to answer the reader's questions with their almighty buzzers. The reader recognizes whoever buzzes first, the team takes a moment to confer, and delivers the answer for approval or bitter disembowelment by their team for getting it wrong. I kid... it is more of a lobotomy.
Now to the point: quiz bowl questions have a notorious nature of including the most esoteric facts possible. For example, did you know that Wounded Knee was both a battle and a movie? No? GOOD. Or, have you ever suffered through an 'obscure musical-architectural advances near Asian rivers of the 21st century relating to Bill O'Riley?' Perhaps you now know the feelings of a quiz-bowler.
Hence, why our team motto has become the title of this blog post: "I shouldn't be expected to know anything... ever." The random occurrence of insight, and the process of giving a correct answer to these even more random 'brain breakers' can not be expected, studied for, nor - some argue - cogently understood.
Therefore, my conclusion: no, I do not know who painted panel six of the East side Gallery. Just because I am the 'art' person does not mean I can be expected to know anything... ever. (especially when you only let me hear the first part of the two part question.)
Maintain the Decorum.
Quiz bowl is the MOST by range of at least six coulombs.
For those of you living under a rock (or rather, those of you who are not living under a rock, just those who don't care about really unimportant things)quiz bowl - aka academic challenge - is a competitive trivia circuit. If you've ever seen 'Mean Girls,' it's kind of like the matha-leet competition, only filled with every subject of knowledge and way less Lindsey Lohan, which is a bad thing (Screw the media! Lohan, you rock!).
At any given time throughout a given tournament, there are a total of 9 important people in the room (or 9 really unimportant people trying to hide that fact): 2 teams of four players, and one reader. Note: substitutes and whatnot do exist, but my writing flows much better without mentioning them... Woops.
These two teams will via for the chance to answer the reader's questions with their almighty buzzers. The reader recognizes whoever buzzes first, the team takes a moment to confer, and delivers the answer for approval or bitter disembowelment by their team for getting it wrong. I kid... it is more of a lobotomy.
Now to the point: quiz bowl questions have a notorious nature of including the most esoteric facts possible. For example, did you know that Wounded Knee was both a battle and a movie? No? GOOD. Or, have you ever suffered through an 'obscure musical-architectural advances near Asian rivers of the 21st century relating to Bill O'Riley?' Perhaps you now know the feelings of a quiz-bowler.
Hence, why our team motto has become the title of this blog post: "I shouldn't be expected to know anything... ever." The random occurrence of insight, and the process of giving a correct answer to these even more random 'brain breakers' can not be expected, studied for, nor - some argue - cogently understood.
Therefore, my conclusion: no, I do not know who painted panel six of the East side Gallery. Just because I am the 'art' person does not mean I can be expected to know anything... ever. (especially when you only let me hear the first part of the two part question.)
Maintain the Decorum.
On Cartesian Doubt
A serious and thought out post? Surely you jest! Well, someone quoted Descartes to me today, and I was implicitly reminded of the junior ToK discussion the previous year. At that time, I thought the saying was brilliant... now, I'm not so sure.
When Descartes came upon his great conclusion, “I think, therefore I am,” he likely never assumed what impact it would have on the future of philosophical thought.
His quotation spawns a question which stands the result of timeless turmoil and inner debate. The answer itself is brilliant, motivational, deep, and just downright interesting to perpetuate.
The question it addresses. “What if everything is just an illusion, controlled by some outside force, and everything I know is a farce?” This concept – that life as we know it could be some sort of false alternate reality – is known as Cartesian Doubt. To be blunt, there is no concept that is more unworthy of argument. Yes, it is a thought provoking what-if; it is indeed a philosopher’s gold mine of what is possible and what is probable. The concept even spawned a successful movie: The Matrix – a robot controlled cyber world that every human is connected to – which is basically an expression of Descartes pre-answer musings. Still, beyond the side note of a philosophy class’ thought bubble, Cartesian Doubt has no place in discussion.
Doubt is self-regressing. Doubt rewrites every system of knowledge we currently have.
Every statement under a doubted system is illogical, impossible to prove (and at the same time, proof of all), but mostly just a waste of everyone’s time. Cartesian Doubt is inherently useless because it offers so many webs of possibility, while destroying any logical background of proof. It leaves no way to construct knowledge other than what we “think.” If there is no knowledge, there is no truth. Without truth, an argument is baseless, and thereby completely unnecessary. Cartesian Doubt has neither purpose nor place.
I think, therefore I am. Otherwise, there is no point.
Short version: I don't like the saying because I think it is a terminating way to view logic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)