If I had a child
I would tell him that
information is
not wisdom, the wise
do not inundate
themselves, the deluge
does not carry them
as waves tossed by wind,
they do not follow,
seeking acceptance
or approbation,
by those who noise.
That knowing all is
not the essential
matter for acting
but rather gaps and
discriminating
consideration
are often better
for well-doing than
pretence to having
either sure command
or omniscience.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
If any are interested in arcana and in Latin...
I liked Spanish, in fact quite a lot. I started studying Latin in school but had to leave, and unfortunately my Spanish has suffered quite a lot since--worse for me because I used a lot of the knowledge gained there to peer into other languages with shared features. My only contact with native speakers often consists of people with vocabularies almost totally unlike that which is taught in schools, so though semi- regular, it doesn't help much. To use the words of a Columbian I was talking to, "I can't understand the Mexicans".
On the bus, to and fro work, I've taken up Latin again. I plan on devouring it heavily and then to move onto its linguistic aspects and development through to various modern Romance languages (hello again Spanish!). Following is a poem of "Catullus" written to himself and to a woman he calls "Lesbia" (in an earlier section) after the nom de plume of the famed Greek, strong-willed, intellectual "Sophos" (who is, by that appelation, implied to be like the famed Greek personality). My own Latin isn't progressed very far, the book reading is a heavily altered version of this, but I liked to look up the originals. It also has traits by which I can explain why I liked Spanish for cross-language purposes: even being classical Latin, an artificial literary dialect developed and maintained despite major difference from the spoken language, and thousands of years old, one can spy the imperfect by knowing the Spanish version, "uentitabas"; another example of cross-language insighting would be the uses of subjunctive in Spanish to express the beginning of something, which once is known, can be seen in other languages as well, whereas the beginner thinks a subjunctive is just some hard formed fixed to tell of hypotheticals or oughts: the beginning of the scene on the mount in the beatitudes (i.e. in Greek) for instance uses the subjunctive this way, (though it's never well translated into English). How interesting it will be, I think, to grapple with Classical, and then move into the Vulgate and related literatures where nonliterary Latin was purposefully employed to be more accessible to the masses, and compare that with Spanish and other romances.
The poem reveals that, just as in the days of Sophos, and just as in ours, lovers dealing treacherously and abandoning their mate, and the longing and perhaps bitterness that arises in the abandoned, was just as much a tragic part of life as now. It is, in fact, one of the great "secrets" of Roman times, that is, people think all the women were just cloistered up and suppressed from doing anything, when in fact in the empire sex relations were not altogether different than they are now; if there were restrictions on the fairer sex, there was nevertheless a period the modern woman, raised on feminist values and expectations (even most who deny being one who don't realize the changes that have taken place socially in the last several decades and how even the assumptions are very different from what they were before), might not mind--except for the greater hardship of living due to less developed technology--visiting or dwelling in if it were possible.
Actually, superficial readings of text and presumptions brought to it have, in the post-advent world, obscured these facts, even when knowledgeable authorities on history, Christian or otherwise, have tried to dispel such myths. Or put another way, bad apologetics by ignoramouses meant to accomodate secular and modernist tastes have betrayed known and valid history (lied) in the name and service, supposedly, of truth. All the more comical when when pretenses are made about politically incorrect passages in Scriptures about women not to offend the feminists in the audience of "believers", though to be fair many such preachers just don't know better, having received misinformation from commentaries perpetuating traditions of commentaries. It's for such reasons that many of the schools now considered the "Ivy League", e.g. Harvard, were founded, such that ministers would not be unlearned and so err. In such cases as un-pc passages of Scripture on women and how they've been popularly mishandled, just a glancing, cursory course of Latin which introduces one to the culture of the first century empire (in my case, first through Oxford's slim little course volumes), or a course dedicated to that culture, could dispel many myths though it might reduce the numbers of congregations and effectiveness of growing those numbers since, after all, what is Christian, genuinely Christian, is now truly and deeply offensive in our societal environment. E.g. rather than appearing to her ego some day, telling a woman about Christ, fail to tell her all about how God loves her and she's a princess and instead speak of wretchedness and adultery and you'll probably get slapped. I remember a group effort of friends putting out fliers on Valentines day telling girls how wonderful they are and how God loves them and the positive responses, but understand now from the context we live in and how those would be taken by the usual American narcissist that it should have made me wince.
Catullus 8
Miser Catulle, desinas ineptire,
et quod uides perisse perditum ducas.
fulsere quondam candidi tibi soles,
cum uentitabas quo puella ducebat
amata nobis quantum amabitur nulla.
ibi illa multa cum iocosa fiebant,
quae tu uolebas nec puella nolebat,
fulsere uere candid tibi soles.
nunc iam illa non uolt: tu quoque inpote,
nec quae fugit sectare, nec miser uiue,
sed obstinata mente perfer, obdura.
uale, puella. iam Catullus obdurat,
nec te requiret nec rogabit inuitam.
at tu dolebis, cum rogaberis nulla.
scelesta, uae te, quae tibi manet uita ?
quis nunc te adibit ? dui uideberis bella ?
quem nunc amabis ? cuius esse diceris ?
quem basiabis ? cui labella mordebis ?
at tu, Catulle, destinatus obdura.
--From, The poems of Catullus By Gaius Valerius Catullus, Peter Green.
<url of the above link for printing purposes: http://books.google.com/books?id=4qsYinaVXQ8C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=catullus+obdurat&source=bl&ots=9CZW6a0T-O&sig=xGwQQvexhphJPrDqyijQYftkVRI&hl=en&ei=yJhVTbXQDZH4swO5jPWtBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CD0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=catullus%20obdurat&f=false>
On the bus, to and fro work, I've taken up Latin again. I plan on devouring it heavily and then to move onto its linguistic aspects and development through to various modern Romance languages (hello again Spanish!). Following is a poem of "Catullus" written to himself and to a woman he calls "Lesbia" (in an earlier section) after the nom de plume of the famed Greek, strong-willed, intellectual "Sophos" (who is, by that appelation, implied to be like the famed Greek personality). My own Latin isn't progressed very far, the book reading is a heavily altered version of this, but I liked to look up the originals. It also has traits by which I can explain why I liked Spanish for cross-language purposes: even being classical Latin, an artificial literary dialect developed and maintained despite major difference from the spoken language, and thousands of years old, one can spy the imperfect by knowing the Spanish version, "uentitabas"; another example of cross-language insighting would be the uses of subjunctive in Spanish to express the beginning of something, which once is known, can be seen in other languages as well, whereas the beginner thinks a subjunctive is just some hard formed fixed to tell of hypotheticals or oughts: the beginning of the scene on the mount in the beatitudes (i.e. in Greek) for instance uses the subjunctive this way, (though it's never well translated into English). How interesting it will be, I think, to grapple with Classical, and then move into the Vulgate and related literatures where nonliterary Latin was purposefully employed to be more accessible to the masses, and compare that with Spanish and other romances.
The poem reveals that, just as in the days of Sophos, and just as in ours, lovers dealing treacherously and abandoning their mate, and the longing and perhaps bitterness that arises in the abandoned, was just as much a tragic part of life as now. It is, in fact, one of the great "secrets" of Roman times, that is, people think all the women were just cloistered up and suppressed from doing anything, when in fact in the empire sex relations were not altogether different than they are now; if there were restrictions on the fairer sex, there was nevertheless a period the modern woman, raised on feminist values and expectations (even most who deny being one who don't realize the changes that have taken place socially in the last several decades and how even the assumptions are very different from what they were before), might not mind--except for the greater hardship of living due to less developed technology--visiting or dwelling in if it were possible.
Actually, superficial readings of text and presumptions brought to it have, in the post-advent world, obscured these facts, even when knowledgeable authorities on history, Christian or otherwise, have tried to dispel such myths. Or put another way, bad apologetics by ignoramouses meant to accomodate secular and modernist tastes have betrayed known and valid history (lied) in the name and service, supposedly, of truth. All the more comical when when pretenses are made about politically incorrect passages in Scriptures about women not to offend the feminists in the audience of "believers", though to be fair many such preachers just don't know better, having received misinformation from commentaries perpetuating traditions of commentaries. It's for such reasons that many of the schools now considered the "Ivy League", e.g. Harvard, were founded, such that ministers would not be unlearned and so err. In such cases as un-pc passages of Scripture on women and how they've been popularly mishandled, just a glancing, cursory course of Latin which introduces one to the culture of the first century empire (in my case, first through Oxford's slim little course volumes), or a course dedicated to that culture, could dispel many myths though it might reduce the numbers of congregations and effectiveness of growing those numbers since, after all, what is Christian, genuinely Christian, is now truly and deeply offensive in our societal environment. E.g. rather than appearing to her ego some day, telling a woman about Christ, fail to tell her all about how God loves her and she's a princess and instead speak of wretchedness and adultery and you'll probably get slapped. I remember a group effort of friends putting out fliers on Valentines day telling girls how wonderful they are and how God loves them and the positive responses, but understand now from the context we live in and how those would be taken by the usual American narcissist that it should have made me wince.
Catullus 8
Miser Catulle, desinas ineptire,
et quod uides perisse perditum ducas.
fulsere quondam candidi tibi soles,
cum uentitabas quo puella ducebat
amata nobis quantum amabitur nulla.
ibi illa multa cum iocosa fiebant,
quae tu uolebas nec puella nolebat,
fulsere uere candid tibi soles.
nunc iam illa non uolt: tu quoque inpote
nec quae fugit sectare, nec miser uiue,
sed obstinata mente perfer, obdura.
uale, puella. iam Catullus obdurat,
nec te requiret nec rogabit inuitam.
at tu dolebis, cum rogaberis nulla.
scelesta, uae te, quae tibi manet uita ?
quis nunc te adibit ? dui uideberis bella ?
quem nunc amabis ? cuius esse diceris ?
quem basiabis ? cui labella mordebis ?
at tu, Catulle, destinatus obdura.
--From, The poems of Catullus By Gaius Valerius Catullus, Peter Green.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Reviving "Seva" as "Sevacious"
Some time ago I wrote a poem which among other things utilizes several old[er] English terms now obsolete from usage as a means to revive them as "The Sciolist" desires. Of course, given I'm no famous poet, that could take a while, with some unknown means of that poem actually reaching broad circulation), and given the older forms and plays in the poem, I don't know that it's the best course for such resuscitation's. I wanted to make yet another link to "The Sciolist's" page with the list of terms he's seeking regeneration for, and then suggest a way to revive a suggested word that I did not poem, "seva". The proposal is simple, relying upon analogy of sound and tacking-on an ending, -acious . Savacious already has a ring in common with words like salacious, spacious, etc., and -acious words aren't unusual in English, e.g. vivacious and so on, and just Googling it turns up results showing that people already are willing to tack it onto unusual places (often for cheesy marketing purposes), though sometimes with much less tact than the sound of this combination (e.g. "Audi- acious" ). See also -ous to understand that the combination of word and part that I'm about to propose for "emotional intelligence" is something probably very acceptable to modern society, especially when applied to women, which I say given the text given by Harper in his proposal for the word,
One might propose sev-i (pr. "say + vī" or "say+vee") but that's too close to "savvy", which merits remarking that perhaps the baser connotations of "salacious" might ruin "sevacious" as well: the sadder since the denotation of "salacious" is "salt" (i.e. "wise"), and where the "spicy" connotation of sexual perversion came from I can only guess as misuse (esp. given that salt is not spicy). The real point to "salacious" is that too much or too little salt, and something is ruined, and the wise are "salacious" because they understand this and how to apply. Pulling back from digression though, the combination not only allows for the word's revival as an immediate adjective, but also as one for state of being by simply tacking on "-ness" ("sevaciousness") another pattern common to modern English norms.
SEVA - As a noun, it meant "mind, heart, spirit," but with a sense of perception, of knowing through the heart. It could serve as a word for the concept we fumble at with words like "emotional intelligence" or trivialize with phrases like "women's intuition."though I'm unsure why he says this concept is "trivialized" when it's said to be a quality commonly or significantly noticed about women.
One might propose sev-i (pr. "say + vī" or "say+vee") but that's too close to "savvy", which merits remarking that perhaps the baser connotations of "salacious" might ruin "sevacious" as well: the sadder since the denotation of "salacious" is "salt" (i.e. "wise"), and where the "spicy" connotation of sexual perversion came from I can only guess as misuse (esp. given that salt is not spicy). The real point to "salacious" is that too much or too little salt, and something is ruined, and the wise are "salacious" because they understand this and how to apply. Pulling back from digression though, the combination not only allows for the word's revival as an immediate adjective, but also as one for state of being by simply tacking on "-ness" ("sevaciousness") another pattern common to modern English norms.
Monday, December 20, 2010
"Little" Errors in Sources Online: Chesterton's "The Last Hero"
The world of the web is one where personal and source attribution are rare, making much of its content less more questionable, which is a shame because it is so rich. Online one finds "The Last Hero" by G. K. Chesterton in many places, but a difference I immediately noticed between submissions exists between them:
(To the latter was added [_] to point out that the first also has a comma.) Notice that though a small detail, this is a difference of major significance. In the former version the grammar equivocates "wreck of" and "fall of", "trees" and "towers"; in the latter, that's less likely, though a possible interpretation: it's more ambiguous (which may have actually led, in the mind of a reader, to the former); the second version is actually the original according to this poem's inscription in actual books as opposed to what is found on the web, and the former is a version found online wherever the poem has been submitted by one "Tom Burrows",
Though the Burrows version is attributed (to Burrows), no source for the text is provided. And neither version, on any website I've found, gives an origin for the text as the site displays. This isn't a rant, however, at why it's bad to use online sources, or their supposed greater inaccuracies than print editions, etc.. The latter excerpted version, the correct one, is found online as well. I found it first on a site dedicated to getting Chesterton's works online, <http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/last_hero.html>, which if you think about it, might by the nature of its purpose be counted as more reliable (have *some* trust, but verify...) as long as the worker or workers are careful. But the best source found online was a scanned-in book of Chesterton's poems itself, found in Google books, <http://books.google.com/books?id=hEHQAAAAMAAJ&dq=the%20last%20hero%20chesterton&pg=PA142#v=onepage&q&f=false>, unfortunately buried under new editions and compilations made probably for little reason other than to have a copyright and profit off the man's work, (and also other mens' work in some books), and fortunately not un-viewable, as often even public domain works are in Google books, because of confusion caused to the machine by such editions. (Note I didn't count the scanned book by google as a or on a website; though it's accessed through a website, it's displayed through, not built as part of, that site.)
Rather than the web being some terrible source of information, those who use it must be critical handlers of their information and sources, similar with the works of academics and scholars, peer reviewed or not, which is controversial these days given that academia hates to having any doubt thrown upon its approved literature or consensuses. But it's very true: a community that puts trust in such things just because members thereof have jointly approved something, or just because of consensus, is one where critical thinking has been lost. This little exercise was just one in textual differences, resolved quickly by finding alternative versions, from which one could know that somethings wrong, and another avenue, either weighing the nature of the sites and their contributors, or finding a more primary source, could be pursued to provide more information, whether questions to ask or answers to the origin of differences or resolution to the question of authenticity.
The wind blew out from Bergen, from the dawning to the dayvs.
There was a wreck of trees, a fall of towers, a score of miles away
There was a wreck of trees[_] and fall of towers a score of miles away,
(To the latter was added [_] to point out that the first also has a comma.) Notice that though a small detail, this is a difference of major significance. In the former version the grammar equivocates "wreck of" and "fall of", "trees" and "towers"; in the latter, that's less likely, though a possible interpretation: it's more ambiguous (which may have actually led, in the mind of a reader, to the former); the second version is actually the original according to this poem's inscription in actual books as opposed to what is found on the web, and the former is a version found online wherever the poem has been submitted by one "Tom Burrows",
<http://plagiarist.com/poetry/7777/>
<http://www.eliteskills.com/analysis_poetry/The_Last_Hero_by_G_K_Chesterton_analysis.php>
<http://www.eliteskills.com/c/15764>
Though the Burrows version is attributed (to Burrows), no source for the text is provided. And neither version, on any website I've found, gives an origin for the text as the site displays. This isn't a rant, however, at why it's bad to use online sources, or their supposed greater inaccuracies than print editions, etc.. The latter excerpted version, the correct one, is found online as well. I found it first on a site dedicated to getting Chesterton's works online, <http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/last_hero.html>, which if you think about it, might by the nature of its purpose be counted as more reliable (have *some* trust, but verify...) as long as the worker or workers are careful. But the best source found online was a scanned-in book of Chesterton's poems itself, found in Google books, <http://books.google.com/books?id=hEHQAAAAMAAJ&dq=the%20last%20hero%20chesterton&pg=PA142#v=onepage&q&f=false>, unfortunately buried under new editions and compilations made probably for little reason other than to have a copyright and profit off the man's work, (and also other mens' work in some books), and fortunately not un-viewable, as often even public domain works are in Google books, because of confusion caused to the machine by such editions. (Note I didn't count the scanned book by google as a or on a website; though it's accessed through a website, it's displayed through, not built as part of, that site.)
Rather than the web being some terrible source of information, those who use it must be critical handlers of their information and sources, similar with the works of academics and scholars, peer reviewed or not, which is controversial these days given that academia hates to having any doubt thrown upon its approved literature or consensuses. But it's very true: a community that puts trust in such things just because members thereof have jointly approved something, or just because of consensus, is one where critical thinking has been lost. This little exercise was just one in textual differences, resolved quickly by finding alternative versions, from which one could know that somethings wrong, and another avenue, either weighing the nature of the sites and their contributors, or finding a more primary source, could be pursued to provide more information, whether questions to ask or answers to the origin of differences or resolution to the question of authenticity.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Someone is Wrong on the Internet, Or Errors Online
Whether someone or something, whether intentional ("wrong") or unintended ("[error] on the internet", though unintended errors are still wrong, and so the authors), this label or tag is tribute to xkcd 386. This post was published 2011-01-27 5:04MST but its publication date set to 2010-12-19 to push it below other posts with that label.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
ON AMUSEMENTS, by Harvey Newcomb
Hmmm... It's been many years since I've read this <http: 27="" www.gracegems.org="" young_man22.htm>, and upon a glancing review found that linking to it may lend recommendation that should not be given unqualified, for example:
How generally vague, subject to abuse, and presumptuous, hmm?
Writing is associated with evil propaganda, and let's not forget the tongue: silence everyone! In all seriousness (see Newcombe's rule VIII., "Engage in nothing which tends to dissipate serious impressions."), however, is it not the word itself that praises drink as a blessing from God, or is it not our Lord or instituted the drinking of wine in remembrance of him? Now if "drinking" with the modern sense, very common among the practitioners thereof, to get drunk, I would agree, but otherwise Necombe is to be avoided on this, perhaps in everything, according to the apostles themselves. "Games of chance"? If he knew his Voltaire he'd know there is no such thing, "chance is a word devoid of sense"; it's the faith in, looking to, the cards and the greed accompanying these games, as well as sinister principle of pursuing gain upon another's loss without effort expended by either end to actually produce anything whether tangible or in service, only "win", that makes "gambling" evil, not any element of "chance": otherwise you'd better put away your "Monopoly", folks, or any number of other harmless amusements whether boardgame or otherwise.
The judgment revealed, even if just by these few limited exerpts, is such that is not to be trusted, and so I don't think I'd recommend Mr. Newcombe as a great counselor any time soon, though perhaps as an interesting, sometimes worthwhile, Moralist...er, maybe for getting insight into the kind of shallow philosophical moralism that's common these days, and has been for centuries...er, perhaps that's too quick to speek and to harsh, so allow me to qualify with the following, "in these couple examples of advice".
VII. Engage in no amusement which unfits you for devotional exercises. If, on returning from a scene of amusement, you feel no disposition to pray, you may be sure something is wrong. You had better not repeat the same again.
How generally vague, subject to abuse, and presumptuous, hmm?
IX. Reject such amusements as are generally associated with evil. If the influences which surround any practice are bad, you may justly conclude that it is unsafe, without stopping to inquire into the nature of the practice itself. Games of chance are associated with gambling and drinking; therefore, I conclude that they cannot be safely pursued, even for amusement. Dancing, also, is associated with balls, with late hours, high and unnatural excitement, and dissipation; it is therefore unsafe. You may know the character of any amusement by the company in which it is found.
Writing is associated with evil propaganda, and let's not forget the tongue: silence everyone! In all seriousness (see Newcombe's rule VIII., "Engage in nothing which tends to dissipate serious impressions."), however, is it not the word itself that praises drink as a blessing from God, or is it not our Lord or instituted the drinking of wine in remembrance of him? Now if "drinking" with the modern sense, very common among the practitioners thereof, to get drunk, I would agree, but otherwise Necombe is to be avoided on this, perhaps in everything, according to the apostles themselves. "Games of chance"? If he knew his Voltaire he'd know there is no such thing, "chance is a word devoid of sense"; it's the faith in, looking to, the cards and the greed accompanying these games, as well as sinister principle of pursuing gain upon another's loss without effort expended by either end to actually produce anything whether tangible or in service, only "win", that makes "gambling" evil, not any element of "chance": otherwise you'd better put away your "Monopoly", folks, or any number of other harmless amusements whether boardgame or otherwise.
The judgment revealed, even if just by these few limited exerpts, is such that is not to be trusted, and so I don't think I'd recommend Mr. Newcombe as a great counselor any time soon, though perhaps as an interesting, sometimes worthwhile, Moralist...er, maybe for getting insight into the kind of shallow philosophical moralism that's common these days, and has been for centuries...er, perhaps that's too quick to speek and to harsh, so allow me to qualify with the following, "in these couple examples of advice".
Monday, December 6, 2010
Romantic or Stalker?
This I found quite funny. I used to say to friends back at the university that a women call an insistent man they've rejected a stalker, and one whose attentions are welcomed, a romantic; some gals there would protest seriously to this description, other gals I know or have known who've actually entered real marriage bonds, however, agree wholeheartedly and laugh at the description. There's two that come to mind: one a gal in Fort Collins whose husband she thought a loser (in any romantic sense, at least) and rejected outright as a romantic partner, whom she shared many friends with and eventually relented to and with whom she's now quite happy; another who is my room mate's wife and a friend since middle school: he was a masterful debater throughout his youth, winning competitions, awards, and even political attention for it, and he had to argue her into even giving him a chance (mutual friends of hers and mine actually sat outside the door listening to him at this; these two very much like each other, though unfortunately for these friends and this fellow, they're -1- not all that close and -2- so dissimilar and aggravating to each other that they likely never will be).
Actually, given the legal environment of our day where you are guilty of a crime if even an innocent comment makes someone "feel" uncomfortable, the regulation of intimacy, and the criminalization even of consensual contact between two people where later one or the other claims some kind of environmental interference such that legally smart people require consent forms even from their spouses before engaging in any activity describable as sexual, it's no wonder we don't see more lasting marriages: the cheap, silly, shallow, easy ones where two idiots who have nothing more than attraction are all that can produce marriages because the other potential unions end-up with the romantic in jail or imprisoned (in the overwhelming number of cases, probably a male) because the object of their attention has been indoctrinated about their right to feel comfortable and never ever be bothered again after rejecting even the first time someone has dared even approach them. I guess that means we have to re-interpret old fables, that is, if our legalist preachers have their way, making all those old, celebrated literary pieces of initial rejection followed by re-appraisal become a source of forlorn hope and example of stupidity where potentially the persistent one is a fool who could, and even after acceptance still can be, liable to punishment, rather than moral edification where the "debate" is a worthwhile endeavor.
Actually, given the legal environment of our day where you are guilty of a crime if even an innocent comment makes someone "feel" uncomfortable, the regulation of intimacy, and the criminalization even of consensual contact between two people where later one or the other claims some kind of environmental interference such that legally smart people require consent forms even from their spouses before engaging in any activity describable as sexual, it's no wonder we don't see more lasting marriages: the cheap, silly, shallow, easy ones where two idiots who have nothing more than attraction are all that can produce marriages because the other potential unions end-up with the romantic in jail or imprisoned (in the overwhelming number of cases, probably a male) because the object of their attention has been indoctrinated about their right to feel comfortable and never ever be bothered again after rejecting even the first time someone has dared even approach them. I guess that means we have to re-interpret old fables, that is, if our legalist preachers have their way, making all those old, celebrated literary pieces of initial rejection followed by re-appraisal become a source of forlorn hope and example of stupidity where potentially the persistent one is a fool who could, and even after acceptance still can be, liable to punishment, rather than moral edification where the "debate" is a worthwhile endeavor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
