The Ivory Tower

Changes

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:37:00 +0000

I've stopped blogging because lately I've felt like I have to perform my best for an audience every time I write and a lot of times I don't want to talk to an audience, I just want to talk to myself. Either I want to hammer an idea for eventual public display, or just take notes, or I know that a certain subject doesn't matter to anyone but me and I don't want to justify my writing on it. The point is I never started a blog for an audience, and it's become a hinderance to my writing. I found a new blogging service, called Vox, which displays posts based upon who has access to see them. Which mean I don't have to search through the back pages of my dashboard for any stray note I typed down two months ago. It's as easily accessable as the rest of my blog, because when I'm logged in I can see all my posts displayed normally. I've been using it for a month and, although I'll miss experimenting with the greater power of Blogger, Vox suits me better. Even if it feels too pre-packaged to begin with.

My new site is http://ivorytowerdue.vox.com and I'll start moving my posts manually from here over there whenever I feel like it.

Beautiful Things #6

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:37:00 +0000

The Second Proclamation of the Prince Chulalongkorn From The King and I [1956]

There shall be no bowing like toad, no crouching, no crawling. This does not mean, however, that you do not show respect for king! You will stand with sholders back and chin high, like this. You will face king with proud expression, showing pride in self as well as in king. This is proper way for men to show esteem for one another, by looking upon each other’s faces, with kindness of spirit, eyes meeting eyes in equal gaze, bodies upright, standing as men were meant to stand.

Taxes

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:53:00 +0000

I saw this this on THE FORUM 4 Ayn Rand Fans, posted by Paul's Here. It really hits home.

I need a job where I can earn enough money to pay my bills, so that I can spend the rest of my time studying. I have such a job, in fact I make enough at this job that I can even think about investing ~$150-$200/month. However, I recently discovered that the government is taking damn near 25% of my paycheck in taxes! That's over $200 per month! The government is actually stealing a week out of four from me! I'm so pissed I actually cursed loudly on the job in front of customers when I found out. So now I have to waste even more time that could be dedicated to my studies in order to find a way to suplement my income. Rat bastards.

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
are the rule

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass

Tax all he has
then let him know
that you won't be done
till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
he's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me
to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

-----------------------------------------
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax,
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest expense
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax(SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
-----------------------------------------

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world....
and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

Enforced Wage Increases

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:59:00 +0000

In regards to the recently proposed and happily defeated minimum wage increase. A government enforced increase in wages is not going to benefit anyone. Employers have a certain budget for employing labour and when the price of that labour increases, no matter how incrementally, they have to off-set the cost in some way in order to maintain their profit. Either they'll have to charge more for their product or cut costs in producing it or both. The most likely method of which is simply to reduce labour, as it's the source of the problem.

In other words, if an employer has to pay more per employee, he'll make due with less employees. Just like when anyone finds a necessary increase in their budget and they have to do without something to cover the costs. The same holds true if you were to argue that a company should take that money out of their profits, because a company doesn't just sit on a pile of money. They use their profit to invest back into the company in research and development, invest it in general, or pay dividends to their shareholders. There isn't an unlimited supply of money and rearranging where it goes does not create more of it.

So when you applaud the wage increase consider your own job, are you a necessary asset to your company or are you expendable to pay for someone else pay raise? And if you think it's OK, your position is secure you could use the money, consider who's paycheck you're receiving by governmental mandate.

It's disgusting that the government puts us in this position, of sacrificed and sacrificee, by rearranging wealth.

Update [8.18.2006 @ 5:53 pm]: I've submitted various forms of this post [edited depending upon the space I'm allowed] as letters to the editor to Purdue's Exponent, The Journal and Courier, and The Indianapolis Star.

Update [8.22.2006 @ 1:37 am]: I've got a confirmation call from all three newspapers, and my letter was published today in The Exponent. We'll see about the others, but I'm tinkled pink about it! Of course I'm keeping print copies; I may just frame them! ^_^
After reading over it in the paper, I really wish I could have expanded a few points and made my argument more explicit, but I think it was good for this format that I remain brief. I'm not sure, since I know what I meant to argue by each statement, but did my brevity do disservice to my clarity? I'd really appreciate an outside opinion on this, since it's my first LTTE.

Update [8.23.2006 @ 5:36 pm]: The Indianapolis Star has published my letter today. I'm going to run down to town today and pick up a paper. Still waiting on The Journal and Courier to see if I'm 3 for 3!

Update [8.25.2006 @ 5:33 pm]: An here's a link to the LTTE page in The Journal and Courier where mine is printed [scroll down to "Sacrifice comes with increased wages"].

Update [8.25.2006 @ 5:33 pm]: An ARI press release.

Scott Fitzhugh

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:32:00 +0000

Watch, I command it. ---> Linky

Scott isn't always right, but he uses his head well. And this video alone is enough to put him on my top ten "list of people who are human".

A taste: "I've never really understood people who say gas costs too much."

Visiting "God" Again

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:31:00 +0000

A little over a year ago I posted my ponderings over the validity of a metaphysically existent god, ie. in this plane/universe/realm/dimension. I wanted to know the answer to the question, "does god exist?" I concluded that to exist one must literally be in existence, that is, the modern notion of god as an infinite-unknowable-ethereal-being is ludicrous. But I was stumped by the claim that god is in existence, is knowable, and does have a definite identity all of which we simply don't yet have conclusive evidence.

What confused me about such an argument is that I knew arguing for either the proof or disproof of god on no evidence are both impossible and silly to attempt, but I didn't yet grasp the implications of that impossibility. I didn't understand where to go from there and I was stopped at the false dichotomy without a proper understanding of the correct third option. I guessed it had something to do with how one goes about gaining knowledge [epistemology], but no clear idea of what that meant.

Now, a year later, I've learned a lot with the help of excellent conversation with my friends Nick, Coire, and Peter. Now that it seems so clear I kind of wonder, rereading John Stark's comments, why it wasn't so obvious then. So, I'm going to explain my new understanding, though I don't think I'm saying anything new to those of you who understand the issue already and to those of you who don't, I don't think I can say anything which will make you understand if you haven't yet thought about it. This is purely for my own benefit.

We as humans very literally can't know anything on no evidence; or to put it positively, we know by evidence. We make observations and find the logical implications of those observations by reason. In the absence of observation there are no logical implications to discover, no conclusions to be made, literally nothing to say.

Put it another way: The conversation that helped me to finally glean this insight was one about truth in which Coire asked, if a man is proven guilty and sentenced but is later released on the grounds of new evidence which proves his innocence, is the original verdict true? Assuming the jury made no errors in judgment given the evidence they were provided, it was the introduction of new evidence and not the realization of faulty reasoning which proved the man's innocence.

The answer is yes, it was true within the context of the given evidence. And what about within the context of that same evidence plus that which was discovered later? It is silly to say. It is like asking if there are snow storms in North Dakota to which the proper answer is yes, then asking if there are snow storms in North Dakota in July, and claiming a "no" answer refutes the truth of the previous answer. They are both correct, both true, but only within the context of the evidence given for the conclusion.

Truth is not reality. Reality is as it is with or without our knowledge of it. Truth is what we correctly derive from our observations reality, but our observations are neither infinite nor boundless.

And so, when asked whether or not I think god exists, my answer is no longer a no [I don't think it was ever a yes]. My answer is: there is nothing I can say about god.

Starbucks

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:17:00 +0000

How do you get along with co-workers? That's what I wish they'd ask me again.

In the last week I had an interview to be a barista at Starbucks. I was passed over for the position and someone else was hired. I remained persistent in talking with the managers, so much so that I was worried I'd become a pest, because I really wanted to know what I had done wrong or what I could do better. I discovered that I gave the impression that I would have difficulty getting along with customers and fellow workers, that I wouldn't be able to form the bonds that are so unique to Starbucks. That's what I had been anticipating.

While reviewing my interview in my mind this had been a knot of uncertainty, I didn't know if I had conveyed myself accurately. I understand that when I was asked that same question, "how do you get along with co-workers", I responded that I didn't very well. And that's true, I didn't get along with my co-workers very well, but it's not the whole truth. That was my error, where I had an oppourtunity to shine I remained blunt.

I should have explained why it is that I've spent the past two months hunting a job at Starbucks, why I've been so persistent. I should have said that I know Starbucks is all about the atmosphere. I know that you can get coffee almost anywhere, but Starbucks is the only place where you can relax among friends and sip a little coffee on the side. That's what I love about Starbucks so much, they've taken my favourite free-time activity and offered it to me any time I want for the price of a tall coffee frappuccino with an extra shot of espresso and light whip [$3.50].

I should have said that Starbucks is one of my favourite places to go and it would be only too wonderful if, for now, I could work there. I should have explained that I have a job now, a decent job at which I could conceivable do well and rise among the ranks. But I don't get along well with my coworkers because it's a fast food place and they're all harried with their own jobs. There's very little room to get along well with each other. I should have said that I try to crack a joke, be friendly, and cheer someone up when they're upset about upset customers, but that it's all secondary to my job where I'm supposed to be as fast as I can. Don't get me wrong, fast food isn't evil, they just sell speed instead of comfort and so "getting along" is rather a non-issue and often gets in the way.

I should have said that it bores me having to repeat lines at customers because when I try to be frank and friendly I get reminded that I'm going too slow. I should have said I enjoy speaking happily with customers and coworkers, that It'd be fun to play with the menu for customers the way Starbucks employees do rather than reluctantly saying, "no, we don't carry that". In short, I should have said that I don't get along well with my coworkers and that's precisely why I want to work at Starbucks so single-mindedly. Because I'm a cheerful and open person and even though I have to pay the bills I want to have some fun doing it. I want to work in a place where I have the oppourtunity, nay am encouraged, to get along with coworkers and customers.

What you have just read seriously illustrates my problem. I write better than I speak, and speak better in retrospect than at present. More to the point, I speak very well (as in the physical action of speech) with diction, clarity, and assertiveness. But what to say, that's what I can never get right the first time. I can't seem to speak my mind without giving it at least ten minutes of thought first as to what exactly I mean to say and in what words to best say it. My powers in that area are restricted to small witty commentary among friends, on which I've actually been highly complimented.

So now, I'm encouraged to try again in six months. We'll see if I can learn to communicate properly by then. I hope this has helped.

Lady Liberty On a Religious Bender

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:48:00 +0000

On Tuesday July 4th in Memphis, Tennessee the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church erected a statue in the image of Liberty with a bizarre Christian metamorphoses.

Instead of the book she cradles the two tablets of the ten commandments in her left arm. In her right she raises aloft a cross rather than the torch of liberty. Reportedly, 'Jehovah' is written across her crown and there is a single tear rolling down her cheek. Lady Liberties wretched twin is named The Statue of Liberation Through Christ.

From The New York Times:

The statue, inspired by a Memphis church that has three giant crosses, strikes him [pastor Apostle Alton R. Williams] as "a creative means of just really letting people know that God is the foundation of our nation," he said.

Mr. Williams has written several books and pamphlets analyzing a variety of matters, among them patriotism and the original intent of the founding fathers.

In "The Meaning of the Statue of Liberation Through Christ: Reconnecting Patriotism With Christianity," he explains that the teardrop on his Lady is God's response to what he calls the nation's ills, including legalized abortion, a lack of prayer in schools and the country's "promotion of expressions of New Age, Wicca, secularism and humanism." In another book, he said Hurricane Katrina was retribution for New Orleans's embrace of sin.

Mr. Williams said his statue's essential point was that Christianity should be the guiding ethos of the nation [...]

Nota Bene: the links to The New York Times will probably go defunct. I'll keep a personal copy for reference if anyone has questions.

Contemporary Minimalism

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 23:24:00 +0000

"One of Britain's most prestigious art galleries put a block of slate on display, topped by a small piece of wood, in the mistaken belief it was a work of art."

This bit of news from Reuters, courtesy Nicholas Provenzo at Rule of Reason, is just too precious. The Royal Academy apparently doesn't know art from a paving stone.

I'm Not Usually Squemish About Bugs...

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 05:31:00 +0000

... But this thing is in my house! ::horrified girly scream::

"House Centipede
(Photo Courtesy of Lindy Miller, Vigo County CES Educator)"
Picture taken from The Plant and Pest Digital Library of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Famous Phrases #1

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:12:00 +0000

Nothing irritates me more than when you're trying to have a conversation and the other party uses these famous phrases to support their argument from a commonplace. Let me clarify, a 'commonplace' is my term for an idea/theory/prejudice/what-have-you that is common in society and nearly universally accepted [usually by training/default and without thinking about it]. Commonplaces range from the good [killing people is wrong] to the bad [faith heals]. I think Ayn Rand would call them bromides but I'm not sure of her exact use of the word, I've only seen it used as a derogatory. Anyway, people tend to use these ideas in arguments because they expect it to be a point of agreement. In itself, I think this is a pretty good strategy for communication because you can build from where you agree without having to review redundant material.

Now, what gets me is when you don't in fact agree with the commonplace that another is trying to use. More often than not the other guy hasn't even thought about it. He doesn't accept it because it makes sense, he accepts it because he's been told to or everyone else does or he's always thought that or any number of inexcusable reasons. And so, when you point out that you don't agree with some commonplace [for those familiar with arguing Objectivism, an example would be: "actually, I don't think taxes in general are a good idea"] they don't have a reasoned out response, they don't take a step back and first rationally establish the commonplace. Instead, they repeat an oft heard phrase which essentializes the idea beautifully with all the intellectual content of horse shit, on the premise that "some witty man said it and we all agree so it must be true, after all it rhymes". I cayn't stan' it!

So, in this series [and I hope it'll be a series] I'll introduce such a phrase, identify the commonplace it shelters, and explain why such an idea isn't cogent. Because I'm sick of being confronted with such "arguments" and being at a loss for words, I'll do this every time I'm thus confronted and hopefully I can use these ready-made retaliations in the future.

Our first subject is: "we can't really know".

At the surface this may seem simple lack of information, but in such a case one would say "don't know", as in the information is not presently available but may be pursued. No, 'can't' denotes an inherent lack of information, as in the nature of man is such that the information is impossible to retrieve.

There are two ways that a person can mean this and both have to do with how the purveyor of these catch-phrases thinks man understands his surroundings [epistemology]. The first is that he claims man's senses are invalid in some way and therefore one's perception of reality is flawed from True Reality. Just walk away, by his own admission this man can't deal with reality thus it's a waste to attempt to deal with him.

The second way in which he can use that phrase is in what is generally considered a scientific way. That is, he means that nothing is proved until you check every instance, that the only conclusive information we have is when something has been disproven. In order to really know something, he thinks that one must show that it is true in every instance throughout time and space, test every eventuality. He rightfully concludes that this is impossible because humans aren't omniscient, they aren't able to possess infinite knowledge.

His error lies in his understanding of what is true, he confuses truth with reality. He's right in thinking that one must look to reality to find what is true, but he's wrong in thinking that means that truth and reality are the same thing. Reality simple exists, it is as it is and nothing more. Truth is established from reality, but it must undergo a process of being established and it consists in the rational conclusions drawn from necessarily finite observations. Truth is not the same thing as reality though they relate intimately with one another there is a subtle difference. He errs in thinking that there is some sort of Real Truth, some omniscient understanding of reality that goes beyond observation, that is infinite observation. So when he says "we can't really know", he's admitting to a fallacious understanding of truth which leads him to believe that it's impossible to achieve and we have to get by on temporary guesses that don't mean anything because it's not Real Truth.

Blog Feed

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:00:00 +0000

I'm currently reading up on blog syndication. I'm thinking I want to add a feed to The Ivory Tower. However, I'm new to this and I'm sort of teaching myself as I go. So ... DISCLAIMER: I can't program myself out of a box; The Ivory Tower may act wonky while I mess around with things. If anyone has any advice, or if you notice something wrong, please tell me. I'll update my progress.

Update [6.17.2006 @ 6:36 pm]: I went with Feedburner, which was recommended by Blogger. It was a lot easier than I had thought, but then these services are rather pre-packaged and user friendly, so that helped. When I got it all set up, I decided the side bar was getting way too crowded so I cut the quotes section, culled my links, and did a little rearranging. I think it still looks a bit busy but it's better, and at least it's organized. If you find it distracting, please tell me.

What's New

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:48:00 +0000

Lately I've been spending a most of my time reading. Here's some of what I've read in no particular order:

Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott - A math nerd classic, it's a short novel relating the travels of a square through various spatial dimensions. It reads like a mini version of Gulliver's Travels. It gets tedious during the flights of fancy like when Square is describing, in terrible detail, the social ascension of shapes, but the narrative picks up after he's through detailing social conventions. I found it interesting because I'm trying to explicitly define concepts like 'shape', 'space', 'figure', and 'line'. It gives food for thought.

Have Space Suit-Will Travel by Robert A. Heinlein - I'm wary of Heinlein. He can be a great writer; moving, dramatic, insightful, and appealing to the individualist. But sometimes he's spectacularly disappointing. Take Stranger in a Strange Land for example, it started off nicely with the introduction of the main character to humanity then devolves into a surreal romp through religious fanaticism. Then there's Future History, which is full of brilliant characters [most of whom are trapped in impotence or suffering] and amazing stories [most of which either end abruptly without resolution or peter out pathetically]. So, I earlier concluded that Heinlein is a wonderful writer who also happens to be a pessimist and likes to torture his characters. I avoided him carefully. Have Space Suit-Will Travel has none of these faults. Heinlein hit a home run with this one. Just to illustrate the character of the novel, my favourite part was ... SPOILER WARNING ... in a scene where an alien race is on trial before an intergalactic committee, the speaker asks if anyone will speak on behalf of them, defend them, or be character witness; no one speaks. The main character says:

"That was my chance to be noble. We humans were their victims; we were in a position to speak up, point out that from their standpoint they hadn't done anything wrong, and ask mercy - if they would promise to behave in the future. Well, I didn't. I've heard the usual Sweetness and Light that kids get pushed at them - how they should always forgive, how there's some good in the worst of us, etc. But when I see a black widow, I step on it; I don't plead with it to be a good little spider and please stop poisoning people. A black widow can't help it - but that's the point."

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card - I read this book because I like science fiction and fantasy but I know very few who write in the genre and are, at the some time, competent or challenging writers. Most sci-fi/fantasy is the worst possibly fluff, literary cotton candy. A friend emphatically argued that Card is good, and he'd been recommended before, so I thought I'd give it a shot while I have time. This was my review [hurray for copy/paste, the great time-saver]:

"I flew through Ender's Game in only one day and you're right that Card's writing is much better than your average Joe Sci-fi. He handles plot/characters fairly deftly and I'm shocked [and professionally impressed] by how desperately painful the novel is. I had hoped, though, that this brilliant suffering was leading to some glorious climax. But the whole novel seems ... like there's no hope, no action, only manipulation and deceit; I found that disturbing. Ender never conquered the forces at work against him, he was used, abused, and cast aside to lick his wounds and go off on his own. I'm really hoping this is only the set-up for the next novel and that Ender, as brilliant as he is, becomes a true hero instead of a tool. That would be magnificent, but I can't help but think that the next novel will degrade into Ender's quest to atone for "crimes" of which he had no consciousness."

I haven't read the sequel yet, nor have I read anything else of Card's, but I suspect he's going to be a lot like Heinlein in the same hit-or-miss sort of way.

The Double Helix by James D. Watson - A first person narrative account of the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. It was interesting in a historical sense but I'm biased against Watson [I think he's a mooching twit], and his extensive explanations of how he was constantly trying to cheat out of the work he was given a fellowship to do didn't help my opinion of him. I couldn't finish it out of disgust, as much as Francis Crick interests me.

"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" by Richard P. Feynman - This is somewhat autobiographical; it's a collection of stories told by Feynman. It reads like you are sitting down at a party with Feynman and he is regaling you with his adventures. I really would have liked to meet Feynman, he was humourous and honest and curious in a way that makes you stop. I think that if I had to sum him up in one word, I'd say "wonder". He was a great physicist. I don't think we would have agreed about a lot of scientific matters, but it would have been a wonderful conversation and we both would have tried to learn something from the other. My favourite quote is when he talks about his experience with mind-readers:

"All the time you're saying to yourself, 'I could do that, but I won't' - which is just another way of saying you can't."

Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Adams - Adams is the famous author of the Hitchhiker's Guide. Though it's amusing, I don't think the Guide is his best work. It's horribly fragmented from massive multiple conversions into different media and toward the end gets kind of over-drawn like a popular television series that's gone on one season too long. Adams wrote two novels around the character Dirk Gently: this and another, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. These are almost unknown, but are much better than the Guide. They both have the same delightful characteristic wit of Adams but they are each properly structured into a complete novel. And besides, Dirk Gently is a babe, there are few men half as interesting as him. To say that Dirk is eccentric and witty is to say that stars are rather hot. At one point a ghost tries to manipulate his thoughts and desires:

"He said in a low savage whisper, 'If anyone can hear me, hear this. My mind is my center and everything that happens there is my responsibility. Other people may believe what pleases them to believe, but I will do nothing without I know the reason why and know it clearly. If you want something, then let me know, but do not you dare touch my mind.'"

If you're familiar with the work of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, especially Rime of the Ancient Mariner, you'll appreciate the novel all the more because it draws many parallels and bases a lot of the humour on such inside knowledge. I also kind of think Adams is making fun of Scientology, either that or L. Ron Hubbard borrowed liberally from Coleridge. It's mystery novel, as well as a little science-fictiony, so you need to pay attention to details and follow conversations closely.

Other books I've read, by am not reviewing right now: Choke by Chuck Palahniuk, Newton Philosophical Writings edited by Andrew Janiak, The Character of Physical Law by Feynman. Currently reading: Number: The Language of Science by Tobias Dantzig. Planned future reading: The Universe by Isaac Asimov, From Copernicus to Newton: The Birth of a New Physics by I. Bernard Cohen, Dialogues Concerning Two Sciences by Galileo, and The Crime of Galileo by Giorgio de Santillana. If anyone has any information or advice about my future reading I'd be delighted to hear it. Especially about The Crime of Galileo, it's a biography that claims not to candy-coat the incidents in favour of Galileo by gratuitously lambasting the Catholic church. I was intrigued by that, but wary about the truth of it. ::raised eyebrow::

You Know You're a Bibliophile When...

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:18:00 +0000

... Having to move your books becomes a major factor in whether or not you're going to move to save $100 or more on rent.

Don't let this happen to you.

Anniversary ... Say What?

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0000

Holy expletives, Batman, I've been doing this for a year! Well, happy birthday to me. ^_^

Something Beautiful #5

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:21:00 +0000

If you've never heard of Art Nouveau or Art Deco, it's really time you had. They are of the more modern art movements and like most modern-ish art tend toward defying any sort of definition. And I'm not really interested in supplying a definition because, in my experience, there is always something someone will call Nouveau or Deco which will contradict whatever I could come up with [for example, Gaudi's fascination with formless blobs]. Instead, I'll explain what it is that I'm referring to when I say Nouveau or Deco and why it is I love that.

The wonderful thing that I think best characterizes both Nouveau and Deco is that it is functional art. They enliven menial everyday items with inspirational art, not by pasting art on top of things, but by making the style an integral/natural part of the structure of the things one creates. Nouveau does it in a flowing, curvy, often described as "whiplash" style (usually busy). Deco does it in a geometric, angular, bare-bones sort of way. But the same glorious idea that I adore applies to both: beauty and elegance are necessary in the structure of living, and not to be added as an after-thought. Here are some cherished examples:

A door by an artist I haven't been able to identify.

Cover art by Nick Gaetano of The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand.

Update [6.14.2006]: Special hello to visitors from Rule of Reason!

New Blog: American Renaissance

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Sun, 28 May 2006 20:51:00 +0000

American Renaissance run by Steven Brockerman is a delightful blog which showcases inspirational men and women at their finest. In his own words:
American Renaissance highlights and celebrates those individuals who, through their virtuous choices, tireless efforts and stunning achievements, embody the American ideal of self-made success.
Reading Borckerman's blog is a great way to remind yourself that it can be done!

I'd especially like to point out his two piece series on Kenneth Iverson, The Man of Steel. Thanks to Bruno at The Simplest Thing for the tip.

'Price-Gouging'

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Thu, 25 May 2006 17:19:00 +0000

This cartoon by Cox and Forkum very elegantly sums just about all I have to say to the bastard, where ever/who ever he is, who is screaming, "PRICE-GOUGING! I demand reparation, O Legislators, for I am being gouged!"

Seriously, I just read this update from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce about the anti-price gouging legislation that recently passed 389-34 in the House:

"Among the bill's highlights:

Directs the FTC to define "price gouging," "wholesale sale" and "retail sale" through rule-making within six months of enactment.
Provides for strong civil enforcement by the FTC and by states' attorneys general, and criminal enforcement by the U.S. attorney general and the Department of Justice.
Provides for civil penalties for price gouging.
For "wholesale sale" violations, the penalties are three times the ill-gotten gains of the seller, plus an amount not to exceed $3 million per day of a continuing violation.
For "retail sale" violations, the penalties are three times the ill-gotten gains of the seller.
Requires any civil penalty imposed to be deposited into any either account or fund used for paying compensation to consumers for violation of state consumer protection laws or into a state's treasury general fund.

Provides for criminal penalties.
"Wholesale" violations will be punishable by a fine of up to $150 million, imprisonment for up to two years, or both.
"Retail sale" violations will be punishable by a fine of no more than $2 million imprisonment for up to two years, or both." [Bold added]

People are calling it toothless especially in light of the more recent FTC report on price gouging which says very basically:

"In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale, or retail level that fit the relevant legislation’s definition of evidence of “price gouging.” Other factors such as regional or local market trends, however, appeared to explain these firms’ prices in nearly all cases. Further, the report reiterated the FTC’s position that federal gasoline price gouging legislation, in addition to being difficult to enforce, could cause more problems for consumers than it solves, and that competitive market forces should be allowed to determine the price of gasoline drivers pay at the pump."

But still ... I have to laugh or I'll cry. People are just so god-damned eager in their demands for the government to tell us what to do and how to do it.

The Price of Money

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Wed, 17 May 2006 21:58:00 +0000

My best friend is an economist and we frequently have discussions about political economy. I don't write about the things I discover from those precious conversations nearly enough. As a result I forget some of the more specific things and have a lot of unnecessary repetition. So, this is just the latest thing and I'll try to be more consistent about documenting my thoughts. He has a much more thorough write-up, as he's the economist, on his blog.

The current consensus of what a currency is worth apparently is: the price of money is the interest rate. Never mind which interest rate, lets just say all interests rates. This is because one charges a price, some amount of money, which is interest for one's money.

I disagree.

First of all, you are not trading money for money; that would be ridiculous. What you are trading is the temporary use of your money for money. You trade a service for a price. So interest rates are not indeed the price of money, but the price of the use of money. Which is why one charges more interest for more potentially 'damaged'/lost money, that's called risk.

Secondly, if we were to determine the price of money we couldn't get an accurate price by assessing only one thing for which it is traded [i.e. the use of money]. When determining the relative price of money we need to consider all of the ways in which it is paid for. For example, when one buys money with a delicious coffee beverage [Starbucks], how much delicious coffee beverage must one pay for the money? Many different kinds of goods and services, including the use of money, are exchanged for money but only looking at one such instance can't tell you what the currency is relatively worth; only the collective productive effort that you can buy with it can.

So the price of money is not its interest rate, but its overall purchasing power.

Keeping the Faith at Arms Length

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Thu, 11 May 2006 22:15:00 +0000

Here's a good article from the New York Times via the new TOS blog. Alan Wolfe reviews three books about the founding fathers and their relationships with religion, two of which report that the FF were minimally religious. The other claims religion was integral to them.

First couple paragraphs:

Like most of his colleagues on the religious right, Tim LaHaye, a co-author of the best-selling "Left Behind" series, insists that "those who founded this nation" were "citizens who had a personal and abiding faith in the God of the Bible." If LaHaye means only to say that religion has played an important role in American history, he is surely correct. But if he is taken literally (as a believer in the inerrancy of the Bible should be), he is decidedly wrong. It is one of the oddities of our history that this very religious country was created by men who, for one brief but significant moment, had serious reservations about religion in general and Christianity in particular.

According to David L. Holmes's "Faiths of the Founding Fathers," none of the first five presidents were conventional Christians. All were influenced to one degree or another by Deism, the once-popular view that God set the world in motion and then abstained from human affairs. John Adams, a Unitarian, did not accept such Christian basics as "the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, total depravity and predestination." Thomas Jefferson cut and pasted his own Bible. Before he became president, James Madison wrote the "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," a classic text in the history of religious liberty. Our fifth president, James Monroe, gave his name to a doctrine, but it had nothing to do with faith; in fact, Monroe may have been the least religious of all our early presidents.

UPDATE: Weird New Trend?

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Thu, 11 May 2006 18:56:00 +0000

I've been scanning the news in my inbox for a reference to Christian responses over The Da Vinci Code to see if this renewed tendency toward violence is for real, or just a coincidence. I found this article from the New York Times: Christian Foes of 'Da Vinci Code' Mull Tactics.

It covers the different strategies that various churches are talking about using against the movie. They are largely non-denominational; the types of strategies run across the various flavours of Christianity. The range of ideas go from the evangelical-educational type like throwing "Da Vinci Code parties" for friends and politely explaining how it's blasphemous [see Constable Visit-The-Ungodly-With-Explanatory-Pamphlets of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch for a practical example], all the way up to suggestive references of how the Muslim community would handle affrontery.

I think this really illustrates the difference between the way a sane person of Western culture would behave and the behaviour of the fanatically religious. The kind of 'uprising' the Western person recommends involves boycotting, writing, and talking as opposed to burning, destroying, and killing. Dr. Brook made a very astute statement to that effect at the Unveiling the Danish Cartoons at USC panel discussions. [Sorry I don't have a quote, the discussion is available free for now online at The Ayn Rand Institute website on the Registered User Page; registration is free].

BTW: I just want to point out one humourously ironic statement by a religious man who proposes that Christians see the movie for sake of debate, "It's very important for some Christians at least to be able to engage in an intelligent discussion." Too true, I don't know how Christians survive without it.

Weird New Trend?

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Wed, 10 May 2006 12:52:00 +0000

While catching up on some blog reading this morning I came across two separate incidents of renewed fondness for fundamentalism among Christians. The first was tucked in the comments section of Jason Roth's Save the Humans [from 3.18.06], and expresses a wish that the recent violent Islamic outrage against depictions of Muhammad serve as an example against similar depictions of Jesus:

Let's hope the National Endowment for the Arts will learn from the reaction to that danish cartoon which parodizes Islam and think twice before funding anymore art which defames Christ Jesus!

The next was a news article posted by Nicholas Provenzo on The Rule of Reason. In the Reuters article Cardinal Arinze is quoted as urging Catholics to pursue some un-named legal recourse against those who insult Christianity. Most eerily, he cites respect for others beliefs as a fundamental right and hints at other religions that wouldn't tolerate such disrespect. The pertinent statements of Arinze are [emphasis added]:

"Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical. So it is not I who will tell all Christians what to do but some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others,"

"This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected,"

"Those who blaspheme Christ and get away with it are exploiting the Christian readiness to forgive and to love even those who insult us. There are some other religions which if you insult their founder they will not be just talking. They will make it painfully clear to you,"

As Mr. Provenzo points out, Arinze obviously has no idea what rights and respect are, though he throws the terms around quite a bit. Interesting to note, Arinze calls respect a "fundamental human right"; that is, fundamental to being human. But if this were true he'd have to respect the beliefs of the artist. No, what he's doing is demanding respect for Christian beliefs, by force if necessary, and legitimizing it by selectively applying the popular egalitarian idea that everyone deserves respect. Wrong on both counts. See what happens when you get sloppy with terms; when you confuse respect for the fact that a person was born with respect for their achievements since then [see my post on manners]. You allow room for all sorts of bad ideas to sneak by casually. That he is a follower of Jesus and advocating a policy which is specifically not turning the other cheek [calling one of Jesus' primary laws a "readiness"] is beside the point; but still worth mentioning because it's hilarious.

What's really creepy about these statements is that they're honouring religious violence. I mean, I thought Judeo-Christians abandoned that centuries ago and matured into passive aggressive moral domination. Does this signify a call to revert back to the good old days of the Medieval Age, or is it just a coincidence? I very much hope the latter, even though the former would show the perversion of religion more concretely.

Mr. Provenzo says:

Arinze's statement is disturbing; it indicates that even the more Westernized religious creeds are drawing inspiration from militant Islam in seeking to coerce belief. I count that as among one of the worst philosophic signs I've seen in years.

I agree.

TOS Events

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Wed, 10 May 2006 12:20:00 +0000

I've recently discovered that, in addition to publishing a most excellent journal, The Objective Standard posts audio files, free of charge, from their past lectures. Since I'm quite limited in transportation and funds, I couldn't be more thrilled! I hope it's a great source of advertisement for them.

TOS hasn't yet posted an audio file for their most recent event, the debate between Dr. Brook and Mr. Finkle on eminent domain, but I'm particularly looking forward it. Nicholas Provenzo wrote an overview of the debate on The Rule of Reason.

New Posting Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Sat, 06 May 2006 22:32:00 +0000

This is a policy I've always followed somewhat intuitively but I decided to make it explicit in order to avoid minor incidents of self-doubt when it comes to posting. I'll only post on topics that interest me; there are two different ways that a topic interests me which decides how I will handle posting. The first is: I want to write about the topic or some aspect of it. The second: that I don't have anything to add to the conversation but am still interested in it, want to keep a record of it, and possibly relay information. Like I said, this isn't a radical change, I've pretty much been doing this all along. The only difference is that since I've now explicitly decided this, I won't refrain from posting a topic without writing an original analysis/opinion or feel guilty when I do.

Latin Essay #4 and [Hopefully] Final

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Carlson) — Wed, 03 May 2006 23:17:00 +0000

If anybody has any editing remarks or suggestions feel free to comment.

In his poetry Virgil writes using predominantly concepts that are immediately obvious physically as opposed to abstract concepts. He does this in two ways; the first of which is the way that he describes an idea by using concrete terms, representing a physical scenario for an abstract idea. He also very often replaces an abstract with a personification, as did most Romans. The second way in which Virgil writes in concretes is fundamental to the Latin vocabulary. The literal meanings of these words confuse the modern English reader, until one imagines the physical description of the word. Only then can an abstract meaning be discovered.

Virgil will take an abstract idea, a concept that generally involves a complex interaction, and instead of outright naming it he describes it circuitously. He lays out a scene in which the emotion, ideal, principle, etcetera is implied but never explicitly stated. By laying out this concrete he makes the idea immediately, perceptually, obvious without leaving it to the reader to explicitly understand the abstract concepts involved. As in the beginning of his Ecloga I, lines seven through ten, Tityrus says, “illius aram saepe tener nostris ab ovilibus imbuet agnus. ille meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsum ludere quae vellem calamo permisit agresti”. He doesn't name sacrifice claiming it is unfortunate. Instead, he conjures the pitiful image of a tener agnus nostris ab ovilibus, and note that the poor little lamb isn't “sacrificed” as such; he very physically wets/dampens the altar. Virgil doesn't say that this sad scene is nonetheless necessary, he makes no moral arguments. He simply points out that it is illius aram, for that god's altar; and as every good Roman was aware, fealty to the gods is of the utmost importance. Similarly, he doesn't state that by offering such fealty Tityrus is now well-off. He doesn't use a complex term like “well-off”, which demands a prerequisite understanding of what constitutes being well and whole definition of morality. He evokes an example saying that Tityrus's chattel are able to roam and that he is free to play what he wishes. This visual scene of wellness is then attributed to illius, which reinforces the idea of a necessity to the sacrifice but does so through images instead of philosophical arguments.

Another good example of Virgil's veracity for using sensory description instead of abstract terminology is when he discusses the habits of bees in the Georgicon four, lines 198 to 199. He describes the bees mating habits, “nec corpora segens in Venerem soluvunt”. Whereas we might say bees don't “make love” with all its underlying meaning and nuances, Virgil hits straight for a most sensual description of the act of making love. Also notice that he doesn't say “love” because love is a highly involved emotion it isn't obvious enough. He refers, instead, to Venus, a shining epitome of love, which everyone can readily recognize and understand.

This demonstrates an interesting characteristic in Roman literature for using gods as the ultimate physical example of what they represent and care for. So that Mars, for example, isn't just some superhuman who delights in massacre and is in charge of ensuring its continuance. He is destruction as his very essence, and destruction is Mars. In this odd way Romans encapsulate an unwieldy idea, or group of ideas, into a single physical entity so that they can hold the whole of it in their minds at once, without necessarily using abstract terminology. The most pronounced instance of this that I recall is in the first Georgicon line 297. Virgil writes, “at rubicunda Ceres medio succiditur aestu”. First of all when he means to say that the period of summer has ended and the winter season begun he says that summer has literally been cut down, destroyed, almost at the hands of winter. As though the two seasons were in actuality fighting for dominance and winter happened to win out. Next he uses the image of the literal harvest being too long in the sun in place of the concept of the end of summer.

The next method I've identified in which Virgil makes a perceptual experience out of his poetry is by the Latin language itself. He uses verbs which by their very meaning denote a concrete, tactile, portrayal of a concept. Take the verb tendere for instance, it literally means to stretch out, to extend or reach. Yet in book five of the Aeneid line twenty-seven he uses it to convey an abstract idea, saying, “frustra cerno te tendere contra”. In this situation Virgil conveys a spiritual straining, a force of effort, by saying that the helmsman is stretching or reaching out against some obstacle, namely the sea.

Latin also evokes a perceptual understanding of certain actions by modifying a direct verb with what would be a preposition in English to denote a more abstract form of that same basic action. For example, perfacere in Virgil's text, “en, perfecta tibi bello discordia tristi” from the seventh book, line 545, of the Aeneid. The simple root of this verb is facere [to do or make] but by modifying it with per- [through] we get to do through, or to do/make in succession. In English this would means something like to accomplish. Now, it takes a special effort in English to fully understand “to accomplish”. You must recognize that it is referring to goals and that goals may not be done in one action, one can't physically do it. It takes a coordinated series of actions to accomplish. This is exactly what the Latin is laying out in very concrete terminology for the reader, it is literally saying that a goal has been done through.

Finally, Latin can use verbs to stand for more highly abstract phrases simply by convention. This is seen by the common use of adeo in Virgil. I found three examples simply by scanning a few selections in the Georgics [1.287, 3.242, and 4.197]. Adeo literally means I come, a simple concrete action easily done and immediately understood by readers. But when used at the beginning of a verbal demonstration it signifies the introduction of an argument. The speaker has physically come to a point. Even though Latin has a specific term for “thus”, Virgil [and indeed, many other Latin authors] use the more concrete “adeo” instead.

Virgil is purposefully putting his work on the most perceptual level possible, making every situation and idea a sensory experience for the reader. He does so by employing concretes to replace abstract ideas. First, by using physical scenarios to describe a highly complex concept. And, next, by replacing actual concepts with godly personification. Though such metaphorical inversions are common in poetry, Virgil exclusively creates a concrete from an abstract, not the other way around. Virgil also writes concretely by using perceptual verb constructions in his Latin. Now, to say whether Virgil creates this sensory experience out of personal inclination or from a rampant worldview among classical Romans would require a more holistic account of the Latin language.