Given how the three of us can't ever seem to post, I thought it would be interesting to write a general inquiry into the concept of writer's block.
The act of writing is a solitary activity. You write alone. Necessarily. Writing is the process of having a conversation with yourself. You think. You type. You revise. You rethink. You refine. You create. When you look up from your computer screen, you realize that no one has heard the discussion in your mind. A tidal wave of changes may befall the world of text in front of you, but your immediate environment is completely static. You're still sitting in the same coffee shop on the same street. Your seat in the shop has not changed. The same baristas are serving drinks at the counter. When you entered it was light and although it's now dark, the street is illuminated by lights. Time has passed, but the landscape is overwhelmingly familiar. This sort of self-induced déjà vu is a common occurrence for those people who associate themselves with writing.
You need a certain silence to be able to write. This isn't a literal silence; authors everywhere have an affinity for background noise. And yet, that's precisely my point - that the noise itself falls into the background. Though an author may hear it, he or she never engages it while writing. The concentration required for writing is unforgiving. It separates you from your surroundings. Authoring thoughts is the same creative process as authoring words.
Writer's block is a state of being - specifically, when a writer is incapable of writing. If that seems intuitively obvious, then you're probably taking the project too lightly. "Writer's Block" is NOT the same as "Writers' Block". If you take a second to think about what the distinction between the two would be, you'll find the answer to be incredible.
"Writer's Block" is the mental block that a single writer has.
"Writers' Block" is the mental block that writers have.
The linguistic difference is profound. It is the difference between "THAT writer has writer's block" and "THOSE writers all have writers' block". It is only possible for the single writer to be blocked. Even if writer's block can be described as a unifying experience within the literary community, it doesn't occur to the community itself.
If ever there was definitive proof about the solitary nature of writing, such proof exists in the concept of writer's block. Writer's block is unique to the writer. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. There is no underlying impedance which affects the entire writing community. Even if there was, it would be extraordinarily difficult to call that impedance a "block", given how writing is always occurring.
I haven't even attempted to describe what writer's block actually is, primarily because that discussion could be endless. Writer's block could be a physical thing, an experience, or a discursive object (think Foucault), but this post isn't about metaphysics. I did, however, suggest that writer's block is a state of being. I will make one more suggestion: writer's block is a certain kind of alienation from your own thoughts. I'll leave you to think about that one.
November 25, 2010
September 17, 2010
I wrote this on my personal blog on Friday at like 3 in the morning. I'm re-posting it here cause I wanted to share the experience for those of you who were not in NY. While the descriptions of this entry are lacking, do keep in mind that I was up late and therefore brain-dead.
As many people should know, the New York area was devastated by a fierce storm yesterday afternoon. I was actually walking home from my first day of work at the New York Film-Maker’s Cooperative when the storm grew worse in Manhattan. Luckily for me, Manhattan was quite possibly the only borough not damaged heavily by the storm.
But as I was walking home and the time between lightning and thunder shrunk, the sky grew dark at a pace that was very much foreboding. At that moment, I thought of the passage in the Bible right after Jesus drew his last breath and he had truly died on the cross.
One passage is from Luke 23:44-47.
44It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last. 47The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.”
A much more descriptive passage is from Matthew 27:51-53.
51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
Yesterday’s storm was truly frightening. The flash of lightning pierced the dark skies and the hammer of thunder crashed upon the heavens, shaking me to my core. The vibrations echoed throughout me as I looked up and saw rain starting to fall slowly. It was a great experience to have been through. I do wonder if anyone else felt the same about the storm. I imagine that the biblical passage was far more intense by a hundred fold.
The rain did start coming down like a sheet of arrows while a block away from my dorm. Even with umbrella, the rain thoroughly drenched me within the 8 sec it took me to walk the rest of the way to the building. I went inside, dried off, went on the internet and found that three hurricanes are off the coast of the US. I don’t know if that had anything to do with the storm here, but seriously, three hurricanes? Is that normal? Also, I had no ideas that tornadoes actually can form in this part of the US. I took it much more of a Midwest/West thing.
Here is a video of the storm rolling into Brooklyn. Like the Angel of Death on the land of Egypt.
=(
As many people should know, the New York area was devastated by a fierce storm yesterday afternoon. I was actually walking home from my first day of work at the New York Film-Maker’s Cooperative when the storm grew worse in Manhattan. Luckily for me, Manhattan was quite possibly the only borough not damaged heavily by the storm.
But as I was walking home and the time between lightning and thunder shrunk, the sky grew dark at a pace that was very much foreboding. At that moment, I thought of the passage in the Bible right after Jesus drew his last breath and he had truly died on the cross.
One passage is from Luke 23:44-47.
44It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last. 47The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.”
A much more descriptive passage is from Matthew 27:51-53.
51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
Yesterday’s storm was truly frightening. The flash of lightning pierced the dark skies and the hammer of thunder crashed upon the heavens, shaking me to my core. The vibrations echoed throughout me as I looked up and saw rain starting to fall slowly. It was a great experience to have been through. I do wonder if anyone else felt the same about the storm. I imagine that the biblical passage was far more intense by a hundred fold.
The rain did start coming down like a sheet of arrows while a block away from my dorm. Even with umbrella, the rain thoroughly drenched me within the 8 sec it took me to walk the rest of the way to the building. I went inside, dried off, went on the internet and found that three hurricanes are off the coast of the US. I don’t know if that had anything to do with the storm here, but seriously, three hurricanes? Is that normal? Also, I had no ideas that tornadoes actually can form in this part of the US. I took it much more of a Midwest/West thing.
Here is a video of the storm rolling into Brooklyn. Like the Angel of Death on the land of Egypt.
=(
August 25, 2010
He's Just Sulking, Don't Mind Him
I saw Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. I wrote a review on the blog. If you thought mine was a weak review, wait for Daniel's review once he sees it. He will be filling the holes and have his say about what he thought.
Daniel looks at hats. A lot. I don't know what he does exactly, but he's always working or moving from place to place. He does stuff. As soon as he buys the DSLR he says he's getting, I want to start a photo scavenger hunt Midwest vs. East Coast...and Japan. If we do have readers, I welcome you to join in.
As for the comic, I tried to mess around with the squares. Sometime in the future, I want to mess with the no squares concept. Also notice our mascot, Tuff The Mountain Goat. He's slowly replacing Kyle as the third member.
I happened to see The Expendables on the same day. Oh. My. God. The movie was so bad, I wanted to get up and leave. I usually can sit through a bad movie. But wow! My patience was rewarded though by the ridiculous final action scenes in the movie, it's only saving grace. Story and dialogue-wise, it was worse than a student film, and if you have talked to me before, you know how much I hate student films.
[edit] I noticed the title was pouting, when I meant to say sulking. MA BAD
August 24, 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World Review - Joe Edition
I'm not going into the story in detail so that those who may have not seen it will not complain about it being ruined and such nonsense. What I will say is that the story, originally written by Bryan Lee O'Malley as a comic, has a solid story. It has everything in the movie that defines each point as a certain point in the movie that should be there. [For more info, go read the late Blake Snyder's book "Save the Cat!"] I went to the theater with someone who said she had read the original comics. She noted that there were parts here and there that were missing from the original but what movie doesn't? She still commented that it was an amazing movie and did not steer clear off the course like The Last Airbender. [god damn you M. Night Shyamalan] Despite it missing certain points of the comics, it still did an amazing job of getting the flow of the movie right so that no one moment was boring or dragged out. The acts connected well and the main character was given enough reason and time to go through what we call "The Hero's Journey". His character begun flawed, shown to him, and then he reaches the end with the right tools to win.
The effects in the movie were what first pulled me to see this movie. When I think Michael Cera in a movie, I just think, oh god, another movie about teenage awkwardness. The use and timing of the effects in the film was very satisfying and "beast". Though it was not a serious film whatsoever, the post production crew did not skimp on the details of each effect that was needed. The whole idea of the game life bars and such added to the film in a most positive manner. The movie was rather surreal at times, and the editing and the effects strongly supported those transitions from reality to his inner thoughts. I am sure that this film will cause a great number of Youtube children and adults to start making short skits and pieces much in the style of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.
The soundtrack was very fitting for the indie crowd the character's band was aiming for. I could totally see the music playing behind Michael Cera if I saw him walking down the street. [Cause you know, Michael Cera acts like Michael Cera in every movie.] Though the indie music scene is clearly not on my list of favorites, I very much enjoyed the use and story development with the music.
The randomness and uncertainty of the jokes was the defining feature of the film. What would be rather awkward if the dialogue was straight forward, the speech and train of thought of Scott Pilgrim and his friends were very amusing and interesting to watch. I happened to see The Expendables right after this movie, and I must say, that it is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. The dialogue was so weak and confusing that it deducted what little that movie had. Unlike that movie, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World was solid and well timed. The jokes made sense and the jokes and speech matched each character as they should have if they were real.
Now Daniel was telling me about how old time reviewers did not like the movie. It all makes sense though. This movie clearly is not a movie that would be understood by the older generation. Very modern in it's style, the whole idea of fantasy and music does not seem to mesh well with the tastes of the people like Ebert and his peers. This is a movie which is meant for a younger generation but clearly not targeted for children. If one had to give an age range, I would say 15-34 years of age. It almost like a cultural thing and is understandable that many people may not like this movie. But it doesn't stop me from believing it was awesome.
Overall, this is one of the best movies I've ever seen in my life. Highly amusing and entertaining, the film clearly was worth the discounted price I bought the ticket for and I would have paid full price to watch it and would not mind watching it again. I would highly recommend it to people and I plan on purchasing it somehow when it is released on a DVD [or a Blu-Ray if I can afford a player].
August 11, 2010
The Death of Thomas Sable
Thomas Sable was a most distinguished writer that published works about the evils of the liberal population and their beliefs. So when his wife ran off with the leader of the hippies rioting outside his estate that February morning, his anger burned a most passionate blaze. Hurt and betrayed by whom he had thought was his greatest supporter, Thomas closed himself off in his house, away from the voices and the light of the world. He took his 9-iron and smashed his computer, then his television, his phone, and eventually, he cut the power lines to the house. He locked himself in the basement and sat on the floor. Thomas Sable was isolated from everything. He had returned himself forcibly into an era in which man was shrouded in darkness. He had put himself into a state much like a embryo in it's mother's womb. Thomas Sable needed to be reborn.
When night fell, the temperature dropped much lower than it should have that time of year in that particular part of the country. Thomas, encased in a number of blankets he had found, sat quietly in the darkness. His eyes saw nothing, his ears heard nothing, and his body, numb from the cold, felt nothing. The only sound he heard was his heart pumping as it got slower and slower, succumbing to the chill of the night. Thomas did not sit there without thought. While his heart was falling asleep, his brain raced for a reason. He searched for an explanation. Why? The simplest question but yet the most profound. Why was he here in this basement dying? Because his wife left him. Why? She didn't love him anymore and fell in love with the liberal freaks. Why? Because he was wrong? Why? Thomas Sable did not know why his wife had left him, a respectable, well-to-do man, for a fool dressed in dead flowers and so he continued to ask the question "Why?" till the cold eventually closed his eyes and his breathing got slower and eventually till he slumped onto the barren floor.
Thomas Sable stood on a barren ice field. The dark sky was illuminated by the light of the auras of the heavens. He eyed the stream and it's path as it went off toward the horizon. A single stream of light fell to the earth and it lit the ice a orange hue. He walked towards the falling light. As he got closer, he felt warmer and started to take off the coat he was wearing. A hundred yards closer, he threw off his sweater. When he was close to the light, he wore nothing, stark naked as the day he was born. The orange light illuminated his figure as it contrasted with the barren blue of the ice behind him. He stepped forward. A vision of himself sitting in the darkness pierced his mind. He looked down, the number 266 blazed red by his foot. He took another step forward and he was smashing his belongings with his 9-iron. A 265 marked his step. Each foot forward, a shard of his past flashed in his mind and a new number was seared the ground. Thomas stepped through his life's memories till he reached the number 1. His vision of his past for this number was only darkness. He looked down at the number. Breathing in, he lifted his head high and stepped into the light. The light hissed as it consumed him. His body began to char and crack. Thomas didn't let out a scream as if he was in pain. He didn't clutch his body in agony. Thomas Sable simply breathed out as his body simply turned to ash and flew off. toward the shining lights in the sky.
Thomas could not tell if his eyes were open. He stumbled around looking for the stairs. When he found them, he slowly ascended the steps, breathing heavily from the cold air. He unlocked the door and stepped out into the morning light. The light was pale against the white floors and the wall. Thomas headed slowly for the kitchen. He grabbed a kettle and filled it with water. He put it on the gas stove and waited patiently for the kettle to whistle. He poured himself a cup of the hot water and sat at the table. He took a sip and breathed out. Breathing in and out, again and again, Thomas Sable was glad he was alive as he stared at the cup and took another sip. The doorbell rang. He ignored it's cry as he looked out the window and fell asleep.
When night fell, the temperature dropped much lower than it should have that time of year in that particular part of the country. Thomas, encased in a number of blankets he had found, sat quietly in the darkness. His eyes saw nothing, his ears heard nothing, and his body, numb from the cold, felt nothing. The only sound he heard was his heart pumping as it got slower and slower, succumbing to the chill of the night. Thomas did not sit there without thought. While his heart was falling asleep, his brain raced for a reason. He searched for an explanation. Why? The simplest question but yet the most profound. Why was he here in this basement dying? Because his wife left him. Why? She didn't love him anymore and fell in love with the liberal freaks. Why? Because he was wrong? Why? Thomas Sable did not know why his wife had left him, a respectable, well-to-do man, for a fool dressed in dead flowers and so he continued to ask the question "Why?" till the cold eventually closed his eyes and his breathing got slower and eventually till he slumped onto the barren floor.
Thomas Sable stood on a barren ice field. The dark sky was illuminated by the light of the auras of the heavens. He eyed the stream and it's path as it went off toward the horizon. A single stream of light fell to the earth and it lit the ice a orange hue. He walked towards the falling light. As he got closer, he felt warmer and started to take off the coat he was wearing. A hundred yards closer, he threw off his sweater. When he was close to the light, he wore nothing, stark naked as the day he was born. The orange light illuminated his figure as it contrasted with the barren blue of the ice behind him. He stepped forward. A vision of himself sitting in the darkness pierced his mind. He looked down, the number 266 blazed red by his foot. He took another step forward and he was smashing his belongings with his 9-iron. A 265 marked his step. Each foot forward, a shard of his past flashed in his mind and a new number was seared the ground. Thomas stepped through his life's memories till he reached the number 1. His vision of his past for this number was only darkness. He looked down at the number. Breathing in, he lifted his head high and stepped into the light. The light hissed as it consumed him. His body began to char and crack. Thomas didn't let out a scream as if he was in pain. He didn't clutch his body in agony. Thomas Sable simply breathed out as his body simply turned to ash and flew off. toward the shining lights in the sky.
Thomas could not tell if his eyes were open. He stumbled around looking for the stairs. When he found them, he slowly ascended the steps, breathing heavily from the cold air. He unlocked the door and stepped out into the morning light. The light was pale against the white floors and the wall. Thomas headed slowly for the kitchen. He grabbed a kettle and filled it with water. He put it on the gas stove and waited patiently for the kettle to whistle. He poured himself a cup of the hot water and sat at the table. He took a sip and breathed out. Breathing in and out, again and again, Thomas Sable was glad he was alive as he stared at the cup and took another sip. The doorbell rang. He ignored it's cry as he looked out the window and fell asleep.
July 26, 2010
Elitism: A Revival
"Reason first: You are a Virginian and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second: I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third: You can write ten times better than I can."
-John Adams to Thomas Jefferson
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
-The Declaration of Independence
The first quote is taken from a letter that John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, concerning why the latter is the better choice to draft the Declaration of Independence. The second quote is a famous excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, which was drafted by Jefferson.
The above quotes are meant to provide a certain perspective on the notion of 'equality'. I'm not a historian; I cannot provide commentary on the difference between the backgrounds of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. However, in my mind they are roughly equal. They were both founding fathers and, consequently, both significant figures in American history. They were both Presidents of the United States and both left their own distinct legacies for the future. So why did Adams believe that Jefferson was more qualified to draft the Declaration of Independence? And more importantly, should Jefferson have drafted it rather than Adams?
When the Declaration of Independence articulates the nature of equality, it becomes apparent that people are equal insofar as they have rights bestowed upon them by a Creator. Some of these rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Jefferson's vision concentrates on people in the abstract. He had no particular individuals in mind when he described the rights which they should be guaranteed. Examining a person in the abstract gives Jefferson the ability to describe notable rights which are candidates for being desirable to all people. In general, he succeeded with flying colors; people both desire and deserve the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
People come in all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, and intellects. They vary in athletic abilities, attitudes, habits, desires, goals, and perceptions of the world. I find this refreshing; there is someone for everyone and there is always someone new to meet.
However, for the purposes of this discussion, people are not equal. The belief that people are all equal requires the use of a very well-defined context. People are equal insofar as they are all people; they deserve a certain amount of respect as such, which is what Jefferson alludes to in the above quote. Equality does not entail that everyone is equally talented nor does it entail that everyone is equally important to society. People have different aptitudes and capacities. These aptitudes and capacities create a divide between the average person (abstract) and any particular person (specific).
People with a background in economics understand the importance of specialization. Specialization leads to an increased efficiency in production and results in an increased quality of life when compared with systems without specialization. The same types of specialization occur in everyday life; people get educated in a specific area of study, so as to be as productive as possible in that area. There may be a value in liberal arts education, but there is no reason that the world's greatest engineer must also be a concert pianist.
Above, it is clear that Adams has yielded to Jefferson's expertise when it comes to writing. The Declaration of Independence had the opportunity to be one of the most significant documents in history and John Adams conceded that he wasn't the right person for the job. I'm going to point out the virtue in that concession.
The concept of elitism is a tricky one. Elitism is obfuscated by a general disdain for authority; a certain mistrust of those people who claim to be elite for no particular reason. However, certain people are elite. Similarly with equality, elitism will require a specific context; some people will be good engineering while others are good at music. Elitism should probably be evaluated with respect to a perspective which compares the relative utility of skills; being good at engineering is probably more useful to the world than being good at Yo-Yo tricks (although I'm sure there are plenty of elite yo-yoers out there). However, I'm not here to establish criteria for elitism; I'm only here to discuss the necessity and the purposes of elitism.
To deny elitism is to deny a need for personal specialization. If Adams had started an argument with Jefferson regarding who should be given the privilege to write the Declaration of Independence, then catastrophe would ultimately result for the document. Jefferson was simply the right person for the job and Adams's concession is a noble one.
To that end, elite people raise the quality of life for everyone. "Elite" is a dirty word in today's society and it should not be. There is nothing wrong with being talented. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with taking pride in your work. It might not be humble to acknowledge how qualified you are, but it's not arrogant to accept that you are talented. If Jefferson had replied to Adams with a humble letter, refusing to write on the grounds that Jefferson had respect for Adams, then Jefferson would have shown weakness in the face of necessity. At some point, Jefferson has to own up to his own abilities and write the Declaration of Independence.
The mediocre often reject elitism in favor of mediocrity. When a person says "people are all equal" in order to make himself or herself feel better about being less talented, it is a vote for mediocrity. It is fear of inequality.
One must never fear inequality. One must accept it and move forward, striving to become the best that one can be. Cowering behind the shield of equality will only reveal the shield to be a thin veil, incapable of protecting anyone from the ways of the world.
Elitism isn't something to be feared; it is something to be admired and respected. Elitism should be its own reward, instilling pride in those people who have proven themselves capable. Elitism is an ideal; it isn't specific to any shape, size, color, religion, or intellect. To that end, being elite is a choice and challenge to pursue. It is not for the feint of heart.
Elitism isn't a tool for dividing people. The elite are students at heart and teachers of their craft. They recognize that helping other people is a way of helping themselves. They understand that everything is a learning experience and that new perspectives have a way of becoming relevant. (After all, how could a well-known perspective provide new insight?)
I challenge everyone who reads this to affect the world in a positive way to the greatest extent that he or she can. I challenge everyone to take pride in who he or she is and to never settle for mediocrity. I challenge everyone to possess a level of authority indicative of his or her effort to become great. I challenge everyone to act courageous in the face of necessity, understanding that most decisions are bigger than any one person. In essence, I challenge everyone to be elite.
I cannot tell you that Jefferson was an objectively better writer than Adams. Either way, I can tell you that question is insignificant. Jefferson was the right person for the task at hand. Why? Because Adams nobly yielded to Jefferson and Jefferson nobly accepted the burden of drafting the Declaration of Independence. It may seem that Jefferson is more elite for having written the document, but I assure you that is not my contention. Jefferson was probably the better writer, but that's only true in virtue of Adams's concession. My point is that both men were elite in their own respective ways; they work together to make the best draft possible, even if, as in Adams's case, that means forfeiting a certain place in history.
Should Adams get credit for helping to write the Declaration of Independence? Not a chance. Should Adams get credit for understanding what is at stake in such a declaration? Should he get credit for owning up to his own limitations? Should he get credit for suppressing illusions of grandeur? Absolutely. For similar reasons, Jefferson isn't gaining notoriety for his humility. However, he should be credited with authoring one of the most important documents in history; he should be credited with accepting responsibility for his incredible proficiency in writing; he should be credited for aiding a nation which was desperately in need of leadership.
In an era of confusion and accusation, it becomes apparent that we must examine our past if we hope to be the driving force behind a better future. Elitism plays a critical role in the success of people in general. Although I issued you a challenge to become elite, this evokes the wrong motivation; a challenge implies competition. Rather, I actually mean to extend you an invitation, which evokes collaboration. Whether or not you accept is entirely up to you.
The above quotes are meant to provide a certain perspective on the notion of 'equality'. I'm not a historian; I cannot provide commentary on the difference between the backgrounds of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. However, in my mind they are roughly equal. They were both founding fathers and, consequently, both significant figures in American history. They were both Presidents of the United States and both left their own distinct legacies for the future. So why did Adams believe that Jefferson was more qualified to draft the Declaration of Independence? And more importantly, should Jefferson have drafted it rather than Adams?
When the Declaration of Independence articulates the nature of equality, it becomes apparent that people are equal insofar as they have rights bestowed upon them by a Creator. Some of these rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Jefferson's vision concentrates on people in the abstract. He had no particular individuals in mind when he described the rights which they should be guaranteed. Examining a person in the abstract gives Jefferson the ability to describe notable rights which are candidates for being desirable to all people. In general, he succeeded with flying colors; people both desire and deserve the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
People come in all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, and intellects. They vary in athletic abilities, attitudes, habits, desires, goals, and perceptions of the world. I find this refreshing; there is someone for everyone and there is always someone new to meet.
However, for the purposes of this discussion, people are not equal. The belief that people are all equal requires the use of a very well-defined context. People are equal insofar as they are all people; they deserve a certain amount of respect as such, which is what Jefferson alludes to in the above quote. Equality does not entail that everyone is equally talented nor does it entail that everyone is equally important to society. People have different aptitudes and capacities. These aptitudes and capacities create a divide between the average person (abstract) and any particular person (specific).
People with a background in economics understand the importance of specialization. Specialization leads to an increased efficiency in production and results in an increased quality of life when compared with systems without specialization. The same types of specialization occur in everyday life; people get educated in a specific area of study, so as to be as productive as possible in that area. There may be a value in liberal arts education, but there is no reason that the world's greatest engineer must also be a concert pianist.
Above, it is clear that Adams has yielded to Jefferson's expertise when it comes to writing. The Declaration of Independence had the opportunity to be one of the most significant documents in history and John Adams conceded that he wasn't the right person for the job. I'm going to point out the virtue in that concession.
The concept of elitism is a tricky one. Elitism is obfuscated by a general disdain for authority; a certain mistrust of those people who claim to be elite for no particular reason. However, certain people are elite. Similarly with equality, elitism will require a specific context; some people will be good engineering while others are good at music. Elitism should probably be evaluated with respect to a perspective which compares the relative utility of skills; being good at engineering is probably more useful to the world than being good at Yo-Yo tricks (although I'm sure there are plenty of elite yo-yoers out there). However, I'm not here to establish criteria for elitism; I'm only here to discuss the necessity and the purposes of elitism.
To deny elitism is to deny a need for personal specialization. If Adams had started an argument with Jefferson regarding who should be given the privilege to write the Declaration of Independence, then catastrophe would ultimately result for the document. Jefferson was simply the right person for the job and Adams's concession is a noble one.
To that end, elite people raise the quality of life for everyone. "Elite" is a dirty word in today's society and it should not be. There is nothing wrong with being talented. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with taking pride in your work. It might not be humble to acknowledge how qualified you are, but it's not arrogant to accept that you are talented. If Jefferson had replied to Adams with a humble letter, refusing to write on the grounds that Jefferson had respect for Adams, then Jefferson would have shown weakness in the face of necessity. At some point, Jefferson has to own up to his own abilities and write the Declaration of Independence.
The mediocre often reject elitism in favor of mediocrity. When a person says "people are all equal" in order to make himself or herself feel better about being less talented, it is a vote for mediocrity. It is fear of inequality.
One must never fear inequality. One must accept it and move forward, striving to become the best that one can be. Cowering behind the shield of equality will only reveal the shield to be a thin veil, incapable of protecting anyone from the ways of the world.
Elitism isn't something to be feared; it is something to be admired and respected. Elitism should be its own reward, instilling pride in those people who have proven themselves capable. Elitism is an ideal; it isn't specific to any shape, size, color, religion, or intellect. To that end, being elite is a choice and challenge to pursue. It is not for the feint of heart.
Elitism isn't a tool for dividing people. The elite are students at heart and teachers of their craft. They recognize that helping other people is a way of helping themselves. They understand that everything is a learning experience and that new perspectives have a way of becoming relevant. (After all, how could a well-known perspective provide new insight?)
I challenge everyone who reads this to affect the world in a positive way to the greatest extent that he or she can. I challenge everyone to take pride in who he or she is and to never settle for mediocrity. I challenge everyone to possess a level of authority indicative of his or her effort to become great. I challenge everyone to act courageous in the face of necessity, understanding that most decisions are bigger than any one person. In essence, I challenge everyone to be elite.
I cannot tell you that Jefferson was an objectively better writer than Adams. Either way, I can tell you that question is insignificant. Jefferson was the right person for the task at hand. Why? Because Adams nobly yielded to Jefferson and Jefferson nobly accepted the burden of drafting the Declaration of Independence. It may seem that Jefferson is more elite for having written the document, but I assure you that is not my contention. Jefferson was probably the better writer, but that's only true in virtue of Adams's concession. My point is that both men were elite in their own respective ways; they work together to make the best draft possible, even if, as in Adams's case, that means forfeiting a certain place in history.
Should Adams get credit for helping to write the Declaration of Independence? Not a chance. Should Adams get credit for understanding what is at stake in such a declaration? Should he get credit for owning up to his own limitations? Should he get credit for suppressing illusions of grandeur? Absolutely. For similar reasons, Jefferson isn't gaining notoriety for his humility. However, he should be credited with authoring one of the most important documents in history; he should be credited with accepting responsibility for his incredible proficiency in writing; he should be credited for aiding a nation which was desperately in need of leadership.
In an era of confusion and accusation, it becomes apparent that we must examine our past if we hope to be the driving force behind a better future. Elitism plays a critical role in the success of people in general. Although I issued you a challenge to become elite, this evokes the wrong motivation; a challenge implies competition. Rather, I actually mean to extend you an invitation, which evokes collaboration. Whether or not you accept is entirely up to you.
July 22, 2010
Revenge is a Beer Best Served Cold
(click to enlarge)
Did someone just say epic? Or rather, why is Daniel in an unknown place drinking a beer, with a hand wrapped in some cloth? What happened to stick figures and stuff like that?
I've been wanting to draw this for a few weeks now but I've been busy with summer school. But since I finished courses today, I let myself have fun. There's an entire story behind this comic, by the way. Come back for more. =D
July 21, 2010
Pretending like it's fun to blog with Daniel and Joe xP
I have things to write about but not the patience to organize my thoughts at the moment so instead of writing a bunch of jumbled nonsense I will simply post more pictures, xD.
That last picture is for Joe. Yes, those are all Gundam, and no, that is not even close to all they had. There were many, many, many more. Basically a whole small store of Gundam models. They're cheap too (I saw prices as low as $5-7 for some models).
 |
| Old dude painting an awesome picture of a town hall-like building |
 |
| Tenmabashi Station area |
 |
| Osaka Castle area |
 |
| Osaka Castle |
 |
| Gundams...many, many Gundams |
July 20, 2010
Daniel is the Odd One.
(click to enlarge... I think)
I mean, it's not our fault white people are afraid of a little "Hiya!" They just don't teach em the old school hunt and kill like they used to. I mean go watch The Patriot. Mel Gibson taught his kids how to shoot well enough to kill a bunch of redcoats. With a musket. Nuff said.
EDIT:
Daniel didn't think he was getting enough action in the comic. So to make him feel better since he isn't Asian, I drew this for him.
this is how Daniel goes fishing. By the way
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/shark-week/
Shark Week is Aug 1st.
July 17, 2010
Unicorns Stole My McGriddle
(click to enlarge the comic... DO IT)
But as the comic says. You're better off getting a intelligent answer from Daniel instead of me cause I have random sleep schedules.
I'll try to make more comics about Kyle as well cause he seems to be the odd man out right now.
It's cause he's busy with his lady friends. kyuk kyuk
I tried summarizing what Daniel has been telling me these past two weeks.
You can ask Daniel for a post detailing what he has been talking about if you want.But as the comic says. You're better off getting a intelligent answer from Daniel instead of me cause I have random sleep schedules.
I'll try to make more comics about Kyle as well cause he seems to be the odd man out right now.
It's cause he's busy with his lady friends. kyuk kyuk
EDIT: Daniel told me the second panel was wrong, so I fixed it. But apparently the Photoshop on Mac and PC are bit different concerning font, so ignore that. you simpletons. I also spelled "that" wrong, but seriously, corn beef hash is more important that spell check
July 11, 2010
The Metaphysics of Time: Time for Beginners
Seeing as how Joe likes to blog about time (see here and here), I should probably include a post about the metaphysics of time. This post is going to forgo discussions about the limits of time, so that means I won't be discussing things like what the stream of time looks like with respect to the whole of time. In other words, expect to not see discussions about: expanding and contracting universes, eternal recurrence (AKA circularity of time), and a single unbendable time stream. This means I will also not be discussing the warping of time; the space-time fans out there will just have to wait. How long will you have to wait? That depends on how fast you're traveling.
So what will I be discussing? This post will be about the nature of how time progresses; I will be talking about how moment #1 becomes moment #2 and the effect(s) that this progression has on these moments.
First, a brief history lesson:
Time is a divisive issue in philosophy. It always has been and (probably) always will be. Different people perceive time in vastly different ways. Frequently, each person's perception of time shapes their own perception of the world. (You'll see why this is true later.)
Fast forward to 1908 when J.M.E. McTaggart releases The Unreality of Time. This was an incredibly important text for a variety of reasons (not that I've read it). In this work, McTaggart attempts to characterize distinct perceptions of time and organize them according to how they treat the progression of events. From there, McTaggart evaluates these theories and comes to his own conclusion about the nature of time (discussed at the end of this post).
McTaggart divides theories about time into A-theories and B-theories (apparently McTaggart didn't feel like getting creative with the names). Please note that there is a linguistics project here, but I'm not going to discuss much linguistics material. Also, please note that ontology is the study of the nature of existence.
A-theories: These theories hold that language is inherently tensed and that whether an event is "past", "present" or "future" will affect the event in an ontological way. This means that whether or not the event exists will be affected by it's location relative to the present.
Let's look at a few examples of A-theories:
Presentism: the belief that only the present exists. This is somewhat intuitive, given the present seems "more real" than the past or future. Each passing moment is real as it passes, but it ceases to exist after it's gone or before it happens.
Growing Block: the belief that only the past and present exist. Again, this is is somewhat intuitive, because the past is a series of events which have already happened. These events contribute to the whole of history. The past exists as much as the present does, no matter how distant. The amount of events which exist is growing with each passing moment, hence the name "growing block".
Shrinking Block: the belief that only the present and future exist. I think this one is less intuitive, but it no less important. The rationale for this one is something along the lines of: the past is gone and cannot be changed. The present and future are therefore real, as there is still a possibility that these could change. The amount of events which exist is shrinking with each passing moment, hence the name "shrinking block".
(The above list is not comprehensive; I just listed a few examples for clarity.)
B-theories: These theories hold that language is inherently tenseless and that all times in the past, present, and future are equally real. In essence, there is a time at which any given event occurs and time itself is nothing but and ordering of these events. In other words, time is defined with respect to other events.
If you're a B-theorist, then you believe that the past is full of events which exist NOW. You cannot experience these events, but they exist now as having occurred at some particular time. In addition, the future is full of events which exist NOW. You will never be able to experience these events, but they exist as much as the present does.
There is a C-theory, but I won't be spending much time discussing it. Essentially, C-theory orders events in terms of two other events, one of which is before the event and one of which is after it. So, event B is between events A and C is an example of C-theory.
McTaggart's own conclusion was that time was an illusion. Although I'm not particularly familiar with the argument, I do know the basics. McTaggart believed that the B-series was dependent on the A-series. Consequently, he focused spent his time evaluating the A-series. However, McTaggart believed that the A-series resulted in a contradiction; the temporal locations "past", "present", and "future" are mutually exclusive, but it seems as though these "properties" can be possessed simultaneously with respect to different present-times. For that reason McTaggart concluded that time is not real; it doesn't exist.
Although I don't agree with McTaggart's argument (and consequently his conclusion), I have a profound respect for the system of organization that he has brought to the world of metaphysics.
For the sake of fairness to the arguments, I'm not going to articulate my own opinion on the subject. However, you should give it some thought, because it greatly affects your view of ontology (that which exists). Now you can see why your perception of time will affect the way your organize your life.
As an example, let's evaluate a common situation: planning for the future. If you are a B-theorist, then your future exists now, so it is something to be planned for. However, your past also exists as much as your future does, so maybe you might consider planning for your past. If you are an A-theorist (growing block), then your future does not exist now. Why should you plan for something which does not exist? Maybe you would also be interested in snipe insurance because of all the snipes that make a mess on your lawn. If you answer "my future will exist later", then you fail to answer why you should plan for it NOW. You should plan for it when it finally exists in the present.
If the above seems absurd, then consider the arguments, think about it, and come up with your own answer.
What kind of temporal theorist are you?
So what will I be discussing? This post will be about the nature of how time progresses; I will be talking about how moment #1 becomes moment #2 and the effect(s) that this progression has on these moments.
First, a brief history lesson:
Time is a divisive issue in philosophy. It always has been and (probably) always will be. Different people perceive time in vastly different ways. Frequently, each person's perception of time shapes their own perception of the world. (You'll see why this is true later.)
Fast forward to 1908 when J.M.E. McTaggart releases The Unreality of Time. This was an incredibly important text for a variety of reasons (not that I've read it). In this work, McTaggart attempts to characterize distinct perceptions of time and organize them according to how they treat the progression of events. From there, McTaggart evaluates these theories and comes to his own conclusion about the nature of time (discussed at the end of this post).
McTaggart divides theories about time into A-theories and B-theories (apparently McTaggart didn't feel like getting creative with the names). Please note that there is a linguistics project here, but I'm not going to discuss much linguistics material. Also, please note that ontology is the study of the nature of existence.
A-theories: These theories hold that language is inherently tensed and that whether an event is "past", "present" or "future" will affect the event in an ontological way. This means that whether or not the event exists will be affected by it's location relative to the present.
Let's look at a few examples of A-theories:
Presentism: the belief that only the present exists. This is somewhat intuitive, given the present seems "more real" than the past or future. Each passing moment is real as it passes, but it ceases to exist after it's gone or before it happens.
Growing Block: the belief that only the past and present exist. Again, this is is somewhat intuitive, because the past is a series of events which have already happened. These events contribute to the whole of history. The past exists as much as the present does, no matter how distant. The amount of events which exist is growing with each passing moment, hence the name "growing block".
Shrinking Block: the belief that only the present and future exist. I think this one is less intuitive, but it no less important. The rationale for this one is something along the lines of: the past is gone and cannot be changed. The present and future are therefore real, as there is still a possibility that these could change. The amount of events which exist is shrinking with each passing moment, hence the name "shrinking block".
(The above list is not comprehensive; I just listed a few examples for clarity.)
B-theories: These theories hold that language is inherently tenseless and that all times in the past, present, and future are equally real. In essence, there is a time at which any given event occurs and time itself is nothing but and ordering of these events. In other words, time is defined with respect to other events.
If you're a B-theorist, then you believe that the past is full of events which exist NOW. You cannot experience these events, but they exist now as having occurred at some particular time. In addition, the future is full of events which exist NOW. You will never be able to experience these events, but they exist as much as the present does.
There is a C-theory, but I won't be spending much time discussing it. Essentially, C-theory orders events in terms of two other events, one of which is before the event and one of which is after it. So, event B is between events A and C is an example of C-theory.
McTaggart's own conclusion was that time was an illusion. Although I'm not particularly familiar with the argument, I do know the basics. McTaggart believed that the B-series was dependent on the A-series. Consequently, he focused spent his time evaluating the A-series. However, McTaggart believed that the A-series resulted in a contradiction; the temporal locations "past", "present", and "future" are mutually exclusive, but it seems as though these "properties" can be possessed simultaneously with respect to different present-times. For that reason McTaggart concluded that time is not real; it doesn't exist.
Although I don't agree with McTaggart's argument (and consequently his conclusion), I have a profound respect for the system of organization that he has brought to the world of metaphysics.
For the sake of fairness to the arguments, I'm not going to articulate my own opinion on the subject. However, you should give it some thought, because it greatly affects your view of ontology (that which exists). Now you can see why your perception of time will affect the way your organize your life.
As an example, let's evaluate a common situation: planning for the future. If you are a B-theorist, then your future exists now, so it is something to be planned for. However, your past also exists as much as your future does, so maybe you might consider planning for your past. If you are an A-theorist (growing block), then your future does not exist now. Why should you plan for something which does not exist? Maybe you would also be interested in snipe insurance because of all the snipes that make a mess on your lawn. If you answer "my future will exist later", then you fail to answer why you should plan for it NOW. You should plan for it when it finally exists in the present.
If the above seems absurd, then consider the arguments, think about it, and come up with your own answer.
What kind of temporal theorist are you?
Believe me, it'll happen.
I was watching Eragon this morning (terrible movie, I choose David Spade and Sean Connery in Dragonheart over that..well I guess it did have Jeremy Irons) and I realized that something was curious about the phrase "Prophesy Fortells" or "Legends Say."
Of course since I am Christian, my beliefs are in a monotheistic creationism by God.
But if we put aside my religious beliefs which people would claim bias, the idea that humans believe in prophecy and legends is fascinating. Where did this theory come from that there is a divine truth that dictates what will come to pass?
Most easily referenced would be ancient civilizations who believed in a higher being. God, the Olympians, The Mayan Gods, the Asian Gods, are all deities supposedly created by the people and according to atheists, are the manifestation of the weak human mind (you think y'all so special). By saying "there will be a time" means that they understood time was a limitless idea, unfathomable by the human brain. How far does time go? How long ago did time begin? Is this the present? By the idea of time, we came with the idea of future. Things shall come and things shall pass. So were prophecies and legends the creation of people's desires from the suffering that is humanity? Is it simply a story that they told themselves to help them go to sleep in a terrible world? How was an entire globe of different civilizations able to come to the same conclusion that there was a defined future of things that will come. We say that time is uncertain for we don't know what will happen because of the numerous variables that combine to lead us to infinite results.
Then according to religions, there must be a divine being(s) who know time or rather transcend it and bestows its knowledge to the people. God sent his prophets to his people. The Greeks listened to the mystical powers of the Oracle at Delphi. The Mayans supposedly thought the world would end on 2012.
Many stories of old tell of legends. Why, movies today use the idea of a gifted being to save the rest. Star Wars by George Lucas has Luke Skywalker as "A New Hope" that was foretold by the predecessors of the Jedi Council. Heck, even Dragonball Z had prophecies that Bardok could tell. How were humans able to believe in what someone was saying?
Coming back to the point, humanity has always been telling stories. Whether for fun or for religious purposes, the idea that a future will come is what drives the human race to keep on living. A business man can look forward to his kids growing up and himself retiring comfortably. A child works toward a future to achieve their dreams. It is plausible to say, that people of old, too weak to do anything themselves, believed that someone would come, or some event would pass that would ease their suffering. But what of prophecies of drought, famine, and death? Why would a race that desires survival foretell of disaster? Man understands the vague concept of time. Past, present, future. Man understands that in order to grow, trials must be overcome. Man is born, lives, and dies. This is the natural course of man. People understood that the heart of man was wicked and filtered that into the concept. We do not know how we're going to die. We may fall from a ledge, be shot, or just cease to exist. This leads me to think of a circle.
Why a circle?
The ancient Chinese believed that the Emperor was called by heaven to take the throne. A mandate from the heavens. When a new emperor arose, it was a cycle. A emperor rose to serve the purpose of the Heavens and to serve it's people. When the Emperor did not serve the citizens well, disaster came and a new Emperor arose. (By the way, I started singing the Circle of Life at this point.)
The circle loops. There will be life and death. There will be good and bad. Dark times shall come and a hero shall arrive to save the day. (Hopefully in green clothing and an annoying fairy following.) The concept of prophecies and that something we deem will come to pass in an uncertain future, often at an uncertain time, is intriguing. Simply that these legends and prophecies continue on from human faith and the idea that we are able to pass on our beliefs and cultures to others is simply the foundations of civilizations.
So how does one understand why people were able to speak of a future? I believe that it was human faith, the undying spirit within us attempting to be happy and fulfill our desires. My beliefs lead me to believe that God already knows everything that was, is, and is to come. Human faith that there will be another day and perhaps they have a reason and a mission is what I believe drove the people to dream big.
July 9, 2010
Metablogging: The Depth of the Blogosphere
Unfortunately, this will not be a creative piece. It is a starter piece, a beginner piece, and an introduction to blogging.
Today, I'm going to coin the term "metablog". (A quick Google search has just informed me that "metablog" indeed has been used before by other people in the exact same context as I am going to use it. Oh well.) Many of you are already familiar with the prefix "meta"; it often means "pertaining to" or "the study of". If you study philosophy, then you should already be familiar with metaethics and metaphysics, the studies of what ethics and physics are, respectively. For my purposes, "metablogging" will pertain to the study of blogging. This includes (and is not limited to) the effects of blogging, the distinguishing characteristics of blogs, and the purpose of blogs.
So why begin here? This is needlessly academic for a blog post. I'm sure that most of you don't care much about the formalism above. That's understandable, given you're probably not reading this post in order to learn something. But if you're not here to learn something, why are you here? Do you expect me to be entertaining and witty? Would you like me to juggle and make you laugh?
A long time ago, long before the printing press, stories were told by word of mouth. To be a writer was a rarity; more people "wrote" by speaking than by writing. In order for stories to persist, they had to be told and retold. This would be like playing an inter-generation game of telephone; I imagine that stories would literally evolve through the years.
Still a long time ago, but only immediately before the printing press, there were precious few books. Information was transferred by hand; only important works had the relevancy to be copied. Although I'm sure there was some writing, I imagine that the vast majority of the works which were copied and distributed were religious texts.
The point is simple: in the days of old, you had to be relevant, significant, or otherwise notable in order to be "published".
The invention of the printing press must have rapidly changed this.
Immediately after the invention of the printing press, it seems likely that the already-important, already-been-copied works were printed and distributed on a massive scale (a primary example of this is the Bible).
This leads the the creation of the printing industry. The printing industry allows people to be published if they are particularly adept at selling their work. Whether a writer gets paid by contractual writing or by writing a book that everyone buys, it takes a certain level of writing proficiency to be published. Maybe it takes less proficiency the first time a person gets published, but I'm sure the printing industry is like any other: either its employees get good or find new work.
This brings us to the relevant question of the post: how do blogs fit into this picture? This is a question about metablogging and it explains why the formalism is outlined at the top of this post. Blogs appear to be, at least on the surface, a culture-changing development in the history of publishing.
Blogs are a low-cost, widely available means of publication. If you have access to the internet, you can now be an author. That might not guarantee readership, but it certainly gets you a lot farther than the days of old; today, everyone connected to the internet has access to your writing, even if they don't read it. In the distant past, there was no real means of reaching your audience. In the not-so-distant past, the only means of reaching your audience was to demonstrate a proficiency in writing before publication. Now, your audience is practically everyone. The only question is whether or not you have enough writing proficiency to develop a following.
In essence, blogging is your foot in the door of legitimate authorship.
Granted, this is a culture-changing development in the sense that now anyone can publish without demonstrating writing proficiency. However, as was pointed out before, publication does not guarantee readership. Therein lies the striking similarity to the not-so-distant past: in order to be a successful blogger, you must demonstrate enough of a proficiency in writing in order to generate readership. Granted, people may not be buying your books and blogging may not be your primary source of income, but writing prowess is necessary to captivate people's attention. This is the difference between successful and unsuccessful blogs, just as it used to be the difference between successful and unsuccessful writers.
So what does publication look like today?
Blogging has changed the landscape of publication. Publication is relatively cheap (as expensive as your internet connection), but the authorship is not guaranteed. Unlike the writing industry, which provides jobs in addition to publishing opportunities, blogging has opened the door for many prevalent writers who may not otherwise have had a chance. Conversely, it provides greater competition for those people in the writing industry today.
However, the end result is the same as yesteryear. Those with intelligent, captivating writing are read. Those without such writing never really had a chance. The internet is a place for shared information, yet it seems as though there is a saturation point. Any individual can really have access to too much information. When that person does, he or she has to pick and choose what to read.
I'm just hoping that we give you reason to stay.
Today, I'm going to coin the term "metablog". (A quick Google search has just informed me that "metablog" indeed has been used before by other people in the exact same context as I am going to use it. Oh well.) Many of you are already familiar with the prefix "meta"; it often means "pertaining to" or "the study of". If you study philosophy, then you should already be familiar with metaethics and metaphysics, the studies of what ethics and physics are, respectively. For my purposes, "metablogging" will pertain to the study of blogging. This includes (and is not limited to) the effects of blogging, the distinguishing characteristics of blogs, and the purpose of blogs.
So why begin here? This is needlessly academic for a blog post. I'm sure that most of you don't care much about the formalism above. That's understandable, given you're probably not reading this post in order to learn something. But if you're not here to learn something, why are you here? Do you expect me to be entertaining and witty? Would you like me to juggle and make you laugh?
A long time ago, long before the printing press, stories were told by word of mouth. To be a writer was a rarity; more people "wrote" by speaking than by writing. In order for stories to persist, they had to be told and retold. This would be like playing an inter-generation game of telephone; I imagine that stories would literally evolve through the years.
Still a long time ago, but only immediately before the printing press, there were precious few books. Information was transferred by hand; only important works had the relevancy to be copied. Although I'm sure there was some writing, I imagine that the vast majority of the works which were copied and distributed were religious texts.
The point is simple: in the days of old, you had to be relevant, significant, or otherwise notable in order to be "published".
The invention of the printing press must have rapidly changed this.
Immediately after the invention of the printing press, it seems likely that the already-important, already-been-copied works were printed and distributed on a massive scale (a primary example of this is the Bible).
This leads the the creation of the printing industry. The printing industry allows people to be published if they are particularly adept at selling their work. Whether a writer gets paid by contractual writing or by writing a book that everyone buys, it takes a certain level of writing proficiency to be published. Maybe it takes less proficiency the first time a person gets published, but I'm sure the printing industry is like any other: either its employees get good or find new work.
This brings us to the relevant question of the post: how do blogs fit into this picture? This is a question about metablogging and it explains why the formalism is outlined at the top of this post. Blogs appear to be, at least on the surface, a culture-changing development in the history of publishing.
Blogs are a low-cost, widely available means of publication. If you have access to the internet, you can now be an author. That might not guarantee readership, but it certainly gets you a lot farther than the days of old; today, everyone connected to the internet has access to your writing, even if they don't read it. In the distant past, there was no real means of reaching your audience. In the not-so-distant past, the only means of reaching your audience was to demonstrate a proficiency in writing before publication. Now, your audience is practically everyone. The only question is whether or not you have enough writing proficiency to develop a following.
In essence, blogging is your foot in the door of legitimate authorship.
Granted, this is a culture-changing development in the sense that now anyone can publish without demonstrating writing proficiency. However, as was pointed out before, publication does not guarantee readership. Therein lies the striking similarity to the not-so-distant past: in order to be a successful blogger, you must demonstrate enough of a proficiency in writing in order to generate readership. Granted, people may not be buying your books and blogging may not be your primary source of income, but writing prowess is necessary to captivate people's attention. This is the difference between successful and unsuccessful blogs, just as it used to be the difference between successful and unsuccessful writers.
So what does publication look like today?
Blogging has changed the landscape of publication. Publication is relatively cheap (as expensive as your internet connection), but the authorship is not guaranteed. Unlike the writing industry, which provides jobs in addition to publishing opportunities, blogging has opened the door for many prevalent writers who may not otherwise have had a chance. Conversely, it provides greater competition for those people in the writing industry today.
However, the end result is the same as yesteryear. Those with intelligent, captivating writing are read. Those without such writing never really had a chance. The internet is a place for shared information, yet it seems as though there is a saturation point. Any individual can really have access to too much information. When that person does, he or she has to pick and choose what to read.
I'm just hoping that we give you reason to stay.
July 8, 2010
Awake
I'm awake, again. Been awake. Don't like it much.
Eyes open. My brain makes the whirling sound a computer makes when it's compensating for the heat during processing. I don't particularly like being awake.
Eyes open. My brain makes the whirling sound a computer makes when it's compensating for the heat during processing. I don't particularly like being awake.
But the fact is, I love being awake. I love it when I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears. When I touch something with my hands, an electrical shock sends my brain a message, "this is real." Time is short. Life is measured in time. How old are you? You still don't have a job? When are you going to get married? Life is short. Time keeps running. No time for sleep.
Move! There are thing to be done! You can't sleep till the deadline in 3 days! Sleep is for the weak. 48 hours in, your eyes, they droop. Your mind slips. The alluring darkness that seduces you each time you blink, gets longer as your eyelids take another second before opening again.
I love sleep. I dream. I see visions of grandeur, of fantasy, and of love that cannot be real. The sands on the beach dig into my heels as I press them further in, hoping to root myself in this realm. But Time, you terrible beast, you turn the gentle waves into raging fires, turn the sands into maggots, and turn the sun into a black hole.
Work. I hate it. But after that 48th hour, when you're heart beats like a smithy's hammer and you gasp for air like a man on the moon and when your legs give no strength as if Atlas has passed you his globe, it is a feeling of ecstasy. The pain, the wonderful fulfillment of Time. I have outdone you once again, vile fiend! I have broken your code. I live and I tell a tale of my suffering with glee. A boast. My pride swells as the fact that I have sacrificed mind and body for a moment of satisfaction.
Time, my black-hearted foe. you rob me of what is rightfully mine, you make me crawl and beg and weep for it. You take from me satisfaction.
Time, my black-hearted foe. you rob me of what is rightfully mine, you make me crawl and beg and weep for it. You take from me satisfaction.
Time, my sweet friend, you send me on ventures that one cannot walk without a kick off a cliff. You send me hurling down into darkness, despair so that I can climb up the other side and keep moving. Time could build me a bridge, but what's the point of that? Bridges will burn, they will snap and they will rot.
I'm awake, eyes closed, deep breathing. I tell you, I'm awake. I'm just resting my eyes. See those footprints behind me, that is where I have come from, you can see them cross the horizon.
Why do I cross this desert? I hear of a land flowing with milk and honey on the other side. It's better than this desert.
No seriously, I'm awake. Stop poking me. I'm not dead.
July 6, 2010
Wheee
click to enlarge.
I'll take note that I should use a larger size next time or see if i can mess with the settings.
Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)