The Ivory Tower

This is a place for me to think out loud (or 'on paper') all things that are interesting me, and to comment on things I want to remember. Naming my blog the Ivory Tower is a joke on the popular notion that philosophy and intelligence are something beyond the common man, somehow above the 'mean' act of living as a human. Rand's refutation of this is what immediately drew me to her. Feel free to introduce yourself.

4.30.2006

Latin Essay and The Art of Nonfiction

Since it's the end of the semester I invariably have a few essays to write as finals for my classes. For my fourth level Latin course I'm supposed to write an essay about the Latin language (thank god, not in Latin). The professor didn't give us any restrictions as to the subject matter, so long as it deals in some way with Roman Latin, as we've spent the semester translating Virgil.

I'm also currently reading The Art of Nonfiction by Ayn Rand, and so thought that I could use this oppourtunity with a wide open essay to practice the principles of writing that she teaches. Even though she seems to be speaking specifically about articles, I think the same principle applies to essays, so long as a put it in a more formal format. The first step is to define your subject and theme which are, respectively, about what are you writing and in what way will you present it.

This makes sense considering my experience with writing. I've always preferred the theme aspect to the subject. It's what makes the essay interesting. There's absolutely nothing more dull than forcing yourself to write an impartial factual account, without being able to convey what the events mean. Of course the subject is important too, it comes first and is literally the stuff of the piece. Just as an onion is only an onion, but a saute makes an onion savory; subject and theme are: what is it and what are you going to do with it.

So, I start my essay with a basic exercise: write out the subject and theme of your piece. Miss Rand identifies a most excellent point in prescribing beginner's to go through this exercise, no matter how rudimentary. You don't really know something until you can convey it (whether written or oral, or better yet, taught).

On what do I wish to write?
The use of Latin vocabulary by Romans.

What is it that I wish to say with this subject?
That Romans had a perceptual understanding of the world as seen in the concrete nature of their concepts.

What I am not going to discuss in this article is epistemology and Rand's theory of concept formation. That is much too broad for my subject. Instead, I will take it as given and only mention the ideas as they are necessary to the connection between my subject and theme.

The reason I chose this subject is that vocabulary is the aspect of the Latin language that I am most comfortable with. Syntax, meter/poetry, grammar, and clause constructions are all very new to me and I don't feel at all confident in my ability to write about them. I chose the theme because it is an aspect of the language that immediately struck me while translating because I've recently become interested in concept formation and it's roles in both cognition and social dynamics.

Ok, now I need to find concretes to demonstrate my claim ...

4.29.2006

Funny Cartoons

A friend recently introduced me to Amy Winfrey's work. She's an animator from California who works on a few side projects which posts on the web. Her animation is professional and her stories witty, satirically funny. They're delightful to watch, short and sweet.

Making Fiends - This is the best, in my opinion. It has the most complete plot structure and is the longest running. The basis of the plot revolves around the conflict between Vendetta and Charlotte, of which Charlotte is happily oblivious. It goes like this, Vendetta is a nasty girl who subjugates her teacher and class mates with apparent alchemical powers. She hates Charlotte because Charlotte is sweet, innocent (annoyingly so), and totally unaware that she should be afraid of Vendetta. Charlotte thinks Vendetta is her best friend and is always delighted when Vendetta gives her 'presents'. A quote:
Vendetta: Enough! Don't torment me anymore! For your birthday I'm going to do something special for you. I have decided to throw a party at you. [maniacal laughter]
Charlotte [reading invitation]: 'Come to Charlotte's birthday party or you will be shot. When: this Friday. Where: Vendetta's backyard. Why: because Charlotte is stupid.' Hee hee, yippee!
Muffin Films - This is a series of very short skits about muffins with personality. There are self-righteous muffins, alien muffins, scared muffins, obsequious muffins, vengeful muffins, dancing muffins; muffins of every variety!

Big Bunny - One giant carnivorous bunny plus three stupid children who went out looking for a dog one day makes for many suggestive stories.

4.28.2006

The Root of "Perfect"

Ok, so I know I've been posting on an unprecedented scale and this is not something I could ever maintain. But I just had to write down this sudden personal revelation because I've been pondering the meaning of perfect and what is perfection for a while and this is a very big clue for understanding. Disclaimer: I'm an amateur Latin student, not an etymologist. This is not an 'official' or historically accurate etymology, it is a connection I found between perfect and a Latin equivalent. Take it as a folk etymology, and I'll research it's validity later [I have a Latin test I'm supposed to be studying for!].

Let's start with the base [wink wink, nudge nudge]. Facio/facere is the Latin verb for "to make or "to do". You add per- [through] to get perfacio/perfacere, which means "to make/do through", or more commonly in English "to accomplish". The perfect passive participle of this verb is perfectus/perfecta/perfectum which means "having been accomplished" [in the various genders]. For example: "en, perfecta tibi bello discordia tristi;" [in no particular word order, if you know Latin] means "Behold, sad discord/dissension/strife having been accomplished/perfected in war for you".

So "perfect" in English comes from something having been accomplished [or perfected]. What that something is, I'm not entirely sure yet but I have an idea.

Update [4.28.06 11:12 pm]: I've discovered the Latin etymology book I bought sucks. It doesn't explain any of the meanings, it just lists English words that come from a certain very common Latin root. So I went to Online Etymology Dictionary and it has to say [brackets are added by me for clarity and bold for emphasis]:
... from L. [Latin] perfectus "completed," pp. [participle] of perficere "accomplish, finish, complete," from per- "completely" + facere "to perform" (see factitious). Often used in Eng. as an intensive (perfect stranger, etc.). The verb meaning "to bring to full development" is recorded from 1398 ...
So, I was correct in essence, but I still need to think about how this applies to the concept of perfection. Here's something interesting:
... Perfectionist is 1657, originally theological, "one who believes moral perfection may be attained in earthly existence;" sense of "one only satisfied with the highest standards" is from 1934.
The concept of a perfectionist originally developed in the mid 17th century. I'm thinking "may be attained in earthly existence" refers back to the idea that perfection is something accomplished (facio --> I do) as opposed to perfection being Platonic in the sense that it is an ideal that can never be realized.

Something Beautiful #4

I was just looking through my pictures of Chicago and I can't help but love America again. I can't stay mad. But I shake my finger at people who would erode the fundamental rights that make America so precious.

A look west upriver on Wabash Ave.


On Wabash Ave. just before a bridge over the Chicago River


Chicago financial district, a block or so east of Sears Tower


Sears Tower, up close and personal


Looking northeast from the Sears Tower


Looking out at Chicago from Navy Pier

Oil Fiasco ... Again

I've been coming across articles about gas prices and the government's response a great deal recently. But I don't have the strength of stomach to sift through all of them, identify the fallacies, address them, and provide links. There's just too much garbage and it's too repetitive for such meticulosity to be of worth. I'm just going to write my own ideas on the matter.

So, what's the problem here? For some reason [I'm going to leave the reason to the economist] the price of gas has increased which is costing Americans more money. This upsets the American because he needs gas to fuel his car to get to work to earn money to buy things like bread and milk etc. He feels his rights are being violated and demands that the government resolve this atrocity. The government responds by demanding that the oil companies refund some of their profits, lower their prices, and/or repeals the companies tax breaks/subsidies.

Forgive me if this sounds old hat, but I'm going to address my arguments specifically toward those who are calling for oil company blood. Mostly because I'm angry and frustrated and need to articulate myself.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a right to oil. Even if oil is the only means to your job; there is no such thing as a right to a job. Even if a job is the only means to your survival; there is no such thing as a right to survival. By virtue of the fact that man must act in order to live you have the right to act, and to the consequences of those actions, so long as those actions don't interfere with other's right to act and retain the products of their actions (ie murder, theft, fraud). Every freedom and right that you have is derived from this most fundamental right. Free speech, free association, freedom of religion, and of press, etc. are all just examples of your broader right to do as you wish without infringes the rights of others. The right to property, and the sole direction of it, is simply the corollary right to the products of your actions. This is what is meant by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is your life to maintain and do with as you please.

This means you can seek a life/job/oil, but no one is obligated to provide you with such. At first this may sound cruel [I know many who've claimed so], but examine the alternative. Who will provide you with this life/job/oil? Your means for living must come from somewhere; if not from yourself then from whom, at whose expense? Who are you going to make your slave? I posit that the cruelty, the brutish ignorance, is not that these things aren't provided for you, but that anyone would claim it must be.

Lets tie this principle back to the oil companies. It is their oil, not yours. They buy it, store it, refine it, package it, ship it, and however they so choose - sell it. No one has any authority to demand that they do any of this in any way; least of all the government whose prerogative it is to protect rights, not violate them. The oil companies are under no obligation to sell you oil at a price that you like, and you are under no obligation to buy from them. They are not your slave, you are not theirs; as humans you must interact mutually.

The oil company willingly produces gas and sells it in order to make a profit. Just as you willingly do what you do in order to make a profit. Imagine the consequences of what you're demanding of the oil company in regards to your own business. If you're a construction worker, what happens when consumer thinks your manager is charging too much for houses? A lawyer; what happens when everyone has a 'right to representation', who's going to set your pay? Oh, you're a teacher. Well, I think you know what happens when every child has a 'right to education' and the government sets your pay. But the oil companies are different you say, they're rich. Would you dare claim it isn't wrong to usurp the property of an oil company because they have more of it and can 'afford' to lose some? Stealing from a millionaire or a teacher is stealing all the same.

If it isn't profitable for you to buy gas and drive to work, then don't do it. Do something that is profitable. For example, I purposefully live near where I work and go to school. I walk, ride bike, bus, and when I absolutely need better transportation I buy a cheap efficient scooter/motorcycle. It's mine and your choice to drive a car or not, and accept the expenses of that or not.

Hark! In the distant I hear the faint whine of, "but they're gouging..." Yes, and exactly what is gouging? I've yet to hear any complainant offer a definition for this. The closest I can figure is that it means that consumers feel they're being taken advantage of. But, how is that? The oil companies aren't lying to you about their product or prices, they're not forcing you to buy it. I damn well know you can choose not to have a car, or not have responsibilities that necessitate a car. So, please, tell me where is this gauging. I'm begging to be enlightened.

No, what "gouging" is, is a term people throw around to justify legally endorsed and executed theft. It's better if it's not defined, then it can mean whatever you imply it to mean. If no one looks too carefully, you can magically get the government to steal for you just by chanting "gouging".

And, what's that you say? Oil companies receive subsidies from taxpayers and so they 'owe' you? Ah, taxes! I'm glad you brought it up! You are entirely right to feel cheated when it comes to taxes, you are being stolen from. Imagine it, the government forcibly takes [dare you not to pay your taxes if you take issue with my terms] money from everyone every year, removes a percentage for administrative costs and the expense of performing this great scandal, then distributes to the rest on services you could very well have gotten yourself. That is at it's best; at it's most honest it steals from the rich and/or industrious to give to the poor and/or lazy; charity at gunpoint.

The oil companies shouldn't receive subsidies. More to the point they shouldn't be taxed and regulated to death so that begging stolen money is the only way to stay in business. And, you shouldn't have to beg stolen money in the form of exemptions every year either. There's no reason why both you and the oil company shouldn't keep and do with your money as you like; except enforced charity. But taxes are another vile story that will be told at a later date.

Yay!

Apr 28, 2006 5:44:11 AM [UTC]: 1000 visitors

**Small celebratory dance in honour of me** ^_^

Another Good One...

I love this song because of the amazing sound, which Nick dubbed "rocky-retroy-dancy". I'm going with Punk Nouveau. Think White Stripes, Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, The Strokes, Fall Out Boy, and The Bravery, of course. But more importantly (because I'm a lyric nazi) I love the tongue in cheek demand for love when he's aware he hasn't earned it. The fact that he calls unconditional love "something for nothing" is so pleasantly unexpected.

Unconditional by The Bravey

I've spent my whole life surrounded
and I've spent my whole life alone
I wonder why I never wonder why
The easiest things are so hard
I just want, I just want love
I just want, I just want love
I just want, I just want love
I just want something
Something for nothing
Something, something for nothing

I'm a beggar and I'm a chooser
I'm accused, I'm an accuser
But nothing's unconditional

I hold the whole world accused
I've only got myself to blame
I wonder why, I never wonder why
The easiest things are so hard

I just want, I just want love
I just want, I just want love
I just want, I just want love
I just want something
Something for nothing
Something, something for nothing

I just want, I just want love
I just want, I just want love
I just want, I just want love
I just want, I just want love
I just want something
Something for nothing
Something, something for nothing

I'm a beggar and I'm a chooser
I'm accused, I'm an accuser
But nothing's unconditional

4.25.2006

Manners

Recently I've been contemplating basic human relations and communicating. And so while reading Contact by Sagan, a line where Ellie and Ken are walking along the Vietnam memorial caught my attention. It goes, "It's hard to kill a creature once it lets you see its consciousness." This statement really helps me to elucidate an idea that's been broiling just below explication in my mind. In 'seeing' the consciousness of another individual one is directly confronted with the reality of this entities humanity.

We experience in a very immediate way our own emotions, thoughts, fears, wonders, desires, heartaches, and joys. And, even though it is obvious that other humans experience this too as humans, it isn't immediately obvious in the sense that we necessarily experience it (you might experience it in speaking with a great friend, but not with the face in the crowd).

This is the basic principle behind manners. One is conscientiously recognizing that another human is in fact human. That, regardless of your feelings toward them, they are a self-contained entity, directing their thoughts and actions as you do. This principle may manifest itself in various forms, official standards [the difference between American and European styles of utensil holding come to mind], but the principle still holds. One is to behave as a human and treat others as such.

To put this concretely, the young man behind the cash register at Wendy's isn't a robot who is automatically programmed to take your money and produce for you food. It's his job, for whatever reason he's chosen to trade his services for money. He may not be good at it or even really know what he's doing, but he is the one who is doing it. Or the lady walking in front of you on the sidewalk. She's not a moving roadblock, an impediment in your way; you shouldn't treat her as such. She's going somewhere and is thinking about it, maybe anxiously, maybe expectantly. The polite thing to do would be to ask her to move aside, look her in the eye and see that she's a person.

Manners are respecting that someone is human, no more, no less. Respect encompasses more than that. I'm not yet certain how to define respect, but merely being human does not qualify one for it; being rightly human does. This brings up the issue of morality and what is right, but I don't want to get into that here. I just want to differentiate between manners and respect, in which manners are granted by virtue of being and respect/admiration/love is earned.

The Funniest Thing on the Web Today

Duking it Out with Iran by Jason Roth
There are still Republicans who seem to think there are underground student groups in Iran with the ability to overturn their government. Who exactly are these superheroes and how can I meet one? Is there some kind of Hall of Justice, or are they more like X-Men, like underground guardians, biding their time until when they're truly needed? I'm waiting for Wolverine versus Ahmadinejad. And I don't even read comic books.

Please, please, tell me that isn't the reason Bush is holding back with his football. Seriously, I have no idea what motivates our government to so tip-toe around war. Like if we just do it a little at a time then it won't be so bad.

In and of itself war is a nasty thing, you kill people, but you do it because otherwise they'd kill you. Maybe Americans can't say they're at war because they can't say what is worth war.

4.19.2006

Something Beautiful #3

Profound kudos go to Bruno T. Raymundo at The Simplest Thing for identifying this:

Invictus by William Ernest Henley

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.


My 7th grade English teacher had this posted on a wall near my desk and I read it every day, but she didn't include a title or author. So, thank you Bruno, for reintroducing me to something I thought was lost.

4.07.2006

*IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT*

If you live in the West Lafayette area and also oppose the recently passed smoking ban I encourage you to voice your opinion. Kris Knigga has set up an e-mailer for those who want to declare their opposition to the common council. This is his letter (he has a form that automatically fills in the blanks):

From: (your name here)
To: The West Lafayette City Government
Subject: About the smoking ban...

Dear (recipient name),

As a member of the West Lafayette Community, I would like you to know that I do not support the recently passed smoking ban.

I believe that dining in a restaurant or visiting a bar is not a fundamental right, but a luxury. People in our community can choose where they will dine or with whom they want to do business. If a non-smoker decides they don't wish to patronize an establishment that allows smoking, they are free to do so. This makes the smoking ban solely a matter of convenience, not of necessity.

In the same way, no employee is forced to work at an establishment that allows smoking. As Americans, we have the freedom to choose for whom we will work and can choose to work in a smoke-free environment if we do not appreciate second-hand smoke. In fact, Tippecanoe County's largest employer, Purdue University, chooses to be smoke free, along with many other businesses. So again, this is a matter of convenience, not of necessity.

Freedom of Association is an inherent right that Americans hold, guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights. To deny business owners and smokers the choice of participating in a legal activity goes against the very spirit of our nation. We must uphold the principle that it is never acceptable to deny rights to one group of people simply for the convenience of another group.

Furthermore, I believe that the economic harm caused by this ban will outweigh any good that might come of it. I believe that this ban will result in restaurant and bar business being shifted to Lafayette, causing a loss of business in our city. West Lafayette already has smoke-free establishments for those who choose to visit them. By forcing all restaurants and bars to be smoke-free you take away an advantage that smoke-free establishments hold with non-smokers.

For all of these reasons and more, I ask you to do what you can to repeal the smoking ban before it can take effect.

Thank you for your consideration,

(your name here)
(your street address here)
West Lafayette, IN

The first three paragraphs I agree with entirely. While I still agree with the next two paragraphs, I think they miss the key issue here (which is of rights), though they're probably the arguments that will be the most convincing. For example, Kris argues freedom of association. Though he's correct, I'd say the more pertinent argument is the right to property, because of which one is able to have freedom of association. (Freedom to associate comes from the right to own property and dispense with it as one chooses). By dictating how an individual may or may not run their business the government of West Lafayette is violating the citizens' right to do with their property as they see fit.

I understand, though, Kris is directing his letter to the most pressing of the fallacious arguments used by those in favour of the ban.

I can't get it out of my head ...

... But it's so good. Jason Mraz is a self-styled lite-rocker. But his lyrics tend to be so wordy (impressively so, and refreshingly witty) that it's rap-ish and he's the only one I know who does it well. I'm normally a classic and punk rock person, but Mraz is very entertaining and benevolent. And as I indicated, his lyrics get stuck in your head easily.

Geek in the Pink by Jason Mraz
(do do do...)

Well let the geek in the pink take a stab at it.
If you like the way I'm thinkin' baby wink at it.
I may be skinny at times but I'm phat fulla rhymes,
pass me the mic and I'm a grab at it.
Isn't it delicious crazy way that I'm kissin' this,
baby listen to this, don't wanna miss it while it's hittin'.
Sometimes you gotta fit in to get in,
but don't ever quit cause soon I'm gonna let you in, but see...

[Chorus]
I don't care what you might think about me
You'll get by without me if you want...
Well, I could be the one to take you home;
baby we could rock the night alone.
If we never get down it wouldn't be a let down.
But sugar don't forget what you already know,
that I could be the one to turn you out.
We could be the talk across the town.
Don't judge it by the color, confuse it for another.
You might regret what you let slip away.
Like the geek in the pink.

The geek in the pink (do do do...)
I'm the geek in the pink, yeah (do do do...)

Well my relationship fodder don't mean to bother nobody
But Cupid's automatic musta fired multiple shots at her
Because she fall in love too often that's what the matter
At least I'm talkin' about it keep my pattern of flattery and
She was starin' through the doorframe, and
Eyeing me down like already a bad boyfriend
Well she can get her toys outta the drawer then
Cause I ain't comin' home, I don't need that attention, see...

[Chorus]

Hey baby look at me go
From zero to hero
You better take it from a geek like me
I can save you from unoriginal dumb-dumbs
Who wouldn't care if you com...
...plete them or not

So what, I've got a short attention span, a coke in my hand.
Because I'd rather have the afternoon relaxin', understand.
My hip hop and flip-flops, well it don't stop with the light rock.
My shot to mock you kinda puts me in the tight spot.
The hype is nothing more than hoo-ha,
So I'm developing a language and I'm callin' it my own.
So take a peek into the speaker and you'll see what I mean
That on the other side the grass is greener.

[Chorus]
(do do do...)
I'm the geek in the pink yeah
i'm the gink in the pink
oh ya'll, geek is the color for fall


Also eminently worthy of praise is The Killers. "I've got soul, but I'm not a soldier"

Rock on.

4.04.2006

The Much Maligned Toons

Since I've finally discovered how to use the posting-pictures-function I can very succinctly make my stance on the issue.
There are no degrees of tolerance in free speech. Either my words are mine by right or not at all.

Something Beautiful #2

The Violinist by Norman Rockwell [1923]

This man has the most gorgeous hands. The obvious strength of his hand holding the violin contrasts wonderfully with the delicate instrument and his manicured appearance.


The Violinist [detail]

There's somewhat of a story behind my fascination with this particular violinist's hands, but it's not appropriate for polite company. ;-)

4.03.2006

West Lafayette Smoking Ordinance #2

Tonight is the second reading for the smoking ban. I'm going for something a little more philosophical in my approach this time because the last meeting dissolved into a mess. No one there had any concept of what rights, justice, and liberty are. They were arguing as though this were an issue of equally valid claims that needed to be finely compromised to get the maximum amount of satisfaction for everyone (including those that don't deserve it at the expense of those that do). This is what I had prepared to say:


We are not granted rights out of generosity. As the founding fathers knew, rights result directly from man's nature, and the character of man is such that he must act in order to secure his life. This concept of 'right' is exemplified by an American's stated unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You may note that actual gratification is not guaranteed; the act of pursuing values and by implication, the consequences of those actions are.

The merchants of West Lafayette have a right to their business and the operations of such by virtue of the fact that they own it. Desiring a smoke-free environment on someone else's property does not mean you have the right to it. And inviting the general public onto one's property does not imply the public has any right to the property or it's functions, it is not a 'public place' no matter that you call it such. So let us clarify this legislation, it is not the needs or desires of business that you are compromising, but their rights, for the desires of others. In judging this bill you are not balancing equally valid interests, you are balancing the rights of some citizens with the wishes of others.

Another point, the rightness or wrongness of enacting this legislation has nothing to do with the decisions of other governmental bodies. The purpose of legislation and enforcement is to protect individual rights, previously defined as derived from the nature of man. The decisions of neither Madison, nor Bloomington, nor Montana, nor 85% of the population can change the nature of man and his rights. The opinion of no person or group can change the fact that this legislation makes children out of citizens.

Update [4.3.2006 - after the council meeting]: The proposed ordinance passed 5-1. I'm going to stay out of politics from now on. I haven't got the stamina for beating my head against a wall.