2.26.2008

"Teens losing touch with historical references"

sauce

Among 1,200 students surveyed:

•43% knew the Civil War was fought between 1850 and 1900.

•52% could identify the theme of 1984.

•51% knew that the controversy surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy focused on communism.

In all, students earned a C in history and an F in literature, though the survey suggests students do well on topics schools cover. For instance, 88% knew the bombing of Pearl Harbor led the USA into World War II, and 97% could identify Martin Luther King Jr. as author of the "I Have a Dream" speech.


One thousand, two hundred students surveyed and suddenly all high-schoolers are idiots. Granted, quite a few high-schoolers are, but nonetheless, I hardly think such a survey is valid. Perhaps reviewing certain demographics for ACT, SAT and different state's standardized test-scores would reveal more positive statistics.

My fondness for surveys is waning, and in light of the fact [of an opinion!] that it was never present to begin with, well. Tiny little surveys being taken seriously seems to be quite popular; I wonder if surveys have always been so misleading as they are recently?

Oh God, that can't be my destiny.

I refuse to let my life be like one of those short stories in The New Yorker. I grow up to be some miserable 30-something and all the men in my past who fucked me over emotionally or psychologically come back to apologize and blegh.

Live in a windowy cabin out in Wyoming or something with a dog I don't show much emotional attachment to with three-sentence descriptions of my therapy sessions with a woman as cynical as myself...

And then I find out 4/5ths of the way through the story that I have an illegitimate half-brother living in South Carolina who's in debt up to his ears and could really use the financial assistance of his half-sister who so happens to be a renowned textbook author...

The story ends with a really, really subdued "this would be heartfelt if it were a film" scene where I've made a passive decision to give my half-brother some few thousand dollars so he can take care of his wife and two young boys, one of whom is some kind of genius and is enrolled in a fancy boarding school for young geniuses based on his merit alone.

You know, to be honest I'd rather have a more Star Wars-based life. The Force would run strong within me and I'd be a bad-ass Jedi and maybe I should pick something I know more about, but I don't really care as long as I don't end up in some passive, Valium-reduced short story.

2.23.2008

In Which the Entry is Only a Few Hours Later than the Previous One

A few minutes ago I awoke from a dream along the lines of this:

I was a young man in a medium-sized downtown looking for a bookshop, or a deli (my hunger knows no dream boundaries!). While walking I was musing and suddenly I was neither gendered nor in a world I knew; I was, in fact, looking at a much more refined version of this:


Care to take a guess at what that is? HOW I SAW THE UNIVERSE! SKFJDKFJKBLH!

Not only that, it was very, very funny. The universe was built of galaxies that followed each other around because they blindly trusted that they were *supposed* to all stay together, that the universe and subsequently themselves would fall apart and die pretty horribly [I think it was akin to starving] if they didn't cluster like that. Those little diamonds are what the universe kept trying to inhabit, but that space legally [o, laws of the universe] belonged to Zeus, who kept telling them it's all right, the universe is expandi-, no, no, come on, stay out of there!

Hah, what a decidedly different dream from my normal ones... the rest was all about pop culture, and "emo" singers with skinny legs.

In Which the Date of the Entry is 02.23.08

The Math Gene, Keith Devlin. Whoa. I really dig this book. Rather informative although ... the math really is beyond me :\ I'm just hoping that reading *about* it will help me understand the mindset I need to be in to do arithmetic WHICH IS SOMETHING Devlin claims mathematicians cannot do well, either. Ho ho ho!

How To Be Alone, Jonathan Franzen. I'm not very far into this book, I just checked it out today, but I really like Franzen's insight so far. I'm looking forward to the rest of the book.

The Riddle of Joy, G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis. I'm only two, well, they're not really chapters, into this one, but I'm excited about it as well. C.S. Lewis is an author I've been trying to get into [and by trying, I mean thinking about and then forgetting :x] besides, uh, Narnia. Which incidentally I did rather like as a child. I've never heard of Chesterton, though, but apparently Lewis liked him so... I'm hoping to find something in this, I suppose.

As well as The Tale of Genji - which I am really not liking much, by the way, how boring and nothing much happens and when something DOES happen it's in an absurdly subdued way - and the Aeneid. A copy of which I had as a kid and tried really hard to understand, but, well. It was over my head. Plus the copy I have right now is translated super-awesomely easy to read; I think the copy I had before was Penguin Classics. I'll have to look into the translatioooons.

Oh! Greek Art by John Boardman came in the post yesterday HURRAH~
Bookmooch is fantastic. I wish I had money for postage...

2.16.2008

More Human Than Human

source

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INTELLIGENT MACHINE.



Those boosts they're talking about have nothing to do with intelligence, programmed or otherwise, on the part of the machine. They have everything to do with human intelligent manipulation of atomic particles.

"The nanobots, he said, would "make us smarter, remember things better and automatically go into full emergent virtual reality environments through the nervous system"."

No, the nanobots will be programmed to tap into parts of our brain ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THEY WILL NOT "MAKE" US DO ANYTHING.
And how is it even conceivable that we are PHYSICALLY CAPABLE to perform at maximum potential? How is it that the natural forces behind evolution didn't know what they were doing?

How is it that we have forgotten what defines a human being? What does define a human being? Supposedly it's the ability to think in abstract terms, but that's disputed and probably disproved in a number of areas.

Perhaps just a degree of advanced advantage over the other animals in abstract thinking...

The only way that "human level" artificial intelligence could honestly be matched is if we compiled in-depth maps of billions of brains around the globe and based AI on that. Do we have the means to build a brain from the cells up?

Am I the only one seeing the ridiculousness of predicting science, anyway?

2.04.2008

The Melancholy of America Modernia

"The more cultivated a person is, the more intelligent, the more repressed, then the more he needs some method of channeling the primitive impulses he's worked so hard to subdue. Otherwise those powerful old forces will mass and strengthen until they are violent enough to break free, more violent for the delay, often strong enough to sweep the will away entirely. For a warning of what happens in the absence of such a pressure valve, we have the example of the Romans. The emperors. Think, for example, of Tiberius, the ugly stepson trying to live up to the command of his stepfather Augustus. Think of the tremendous, impossible strain he must have undergone, following in the footsteps of a savior, a god. The people hated him. No matter how hard he tried he was never good enough, could never be rid of the hateful self, and finally the floodgates broke. He was swept away on his perversions and he died, old and mad, lost in the pleasure gardens of Capri: not even happy there, as one might hope, but miserable. Before he died he wrote a letter home to the Senate. 'May all the Gods and Goddesses visit me with more utter destruction than I feel I am daily suffering.' Think of those who came after him. Caligula. Nero.
He paused. "The Roman genius, and perhaps the Roman flaw," he said, "was an obsession with order. One sees it in their architecture, their literature, their laws - this fierce denial of darkness, unreason, chaos." He laughed. "Easy to see why the Romans, usually so tolerant of foreign religions, persecuted the Christians mercilessly - how absurd to think a common criminal had risen from the dead, how appalling that his followers celebrated him by drinking his blood. The illogic of it frightened them and they did everything they could to crush it. In fact, I think the reason they took such drastic steps was because they were not only frightened but also terribly attracted to it. Pragmatists are often strangely superstitious. For all their logic, who lived in more abject terror of the supernatural than the Romans?
"The Greeks were different. They had a passion for order and symmetry, much like the Romans, but they knew how foolish it was to deny the unseen world, the old gods. Emotion, darkness, barbarism." He looked at the ceiling for a moment, his face almost troubled. "Do you remember what we were speaking of earlier, of how bloody, terrible things are sometimes the most beautiful?" he said. "It's a very Greek idea, and a very profound one. Beauty is terror. Whatever we call beautiful, we quiver before it. And what could be more terrifying and beautiful, to souls like the Greeks or our own, than to lose control completely? To throw off the chains of being for an instant, to shatter the accident of our mortal selves? Euripedes speaks of the Maenads: head thrown back, throat to the stars, 'more like deer than human being.' To be absolutely free! One is quite capable, of course, of working out these destructive passions in more vulgar and less efficient ways. But how glorious to release them in a single burst! To sing, to scream, to dance barefoot in the woods in the dead of night, with no more awareness of mortals than an animal! These are powerful mysteries. The bellowing of bulls. Springs of honey bubbling from the ground. If we are strong enough in our souls we can rip away the veil and look that naked, terrible beauty right in the face; let God consume us, devour us, unstring our bones. Then spit us out reborn."

-Julian in The Secret History


Now aside from the technicalities I disagree with [such as the Romans finding their release in things like warfare and ... perverse sexual deviance and not in eventual madness; Julian's reasoning of the Roman persecution of Christianity - it's more likely that it was the Christian denial of other gods presented a more political front] the whole thing has to be viewed from another perspective. Julian is talking about bacchanals, where basically the Greeks got wasted and went insane for short periods of time. He compares their repression of the primitive to our repression of the primitive and I don't think that's totally valid in the case of modernity. Ancient and modern architecture, literature and laws only vaguely resemble each other. Compare our [in my opinion, rather ugly] skyscrapers and suburban houses to the Greek Parthenon, the Roman Pantheon; our trashy crime and romance novels to the Homeric epics and Dante's Divine Comedy; our laws which are more restrictive in every sense and much less democratic than the ancient Athenians would have allowed. It's easy to see from all of this that the repression of modern times is different; more resigned to its lack of release than in antiquity, perhaps. What is the likelihood that this is due in part to Christianity? Christianity and time. Christianity, in its development, has taught us to cultivate certain traits in ourselves and our children early on. Early Christianity was just as violent as the area in which it developed - Rome. Christianity as a doctrine [not necessarily the followers' "secret hearts" so to speak] has developed into something more loving, caring, and - depending on your perspective - something duller than its roots.

Christianity has a quiet, sad resignation in its culture. There is little joy to be found in most of its branches; either sadness, ordinary discontent or, in the case of some denominations, very ugly hatred [cough: westboro baptist church]. In this it is reminiscent of the early religions; little comfort - emotionally, anyway - was to be found in worshiping the gods and goddesses of archaic religion. Few Christians find real, solid comfort in God. This spills into the American culture to create an even more melancholy aspect of our country; in essence, our lives suck. We and those around us find little comfort in one another [lack of common courtesy, I believe, is a cause of the lack of real happiness in our personal relationships], the government [although this has, if you pay attention to the country's history, never been much of a comfort anyway], our popular culture, and now the leading religion in America is unhappy with itself. We work too hard and don't get enough in the way of reward. We have little to nothing in the way of money, love, or happiness. Thus, our repression is similar to that of the ancients, but the differences must be noted.

If only because our repression produces nothing worth noting by our descendants in twenty generations...