My last post was on racism. There were some other thoughts that I wanted to bring up, but I had become rather long winded. Perhaps this post will be shorter, but I can never tell. Hopefully it is, because I am just taking a study break at the library right now.
American literature is about finding identity. From the very beginning, a significant percentage of writers and works have had that theme. A lot of this quest for identity has to do with forming a recognizable literary presence that was not overshadowed by the great writers of England. For a long time, American writing largely was seen as an imitation of English literature. Many times this was true, but a lot of the issue with creating an independent and American literary form was due to the unresolved question of who or what is an American?
Personally, I believe that the advent of the transcendentalist movement was where American literature became independent. This is why I consider Walt Whitman to be the founding father of American literature. Sure, he was preceded by Emerson and a few other transcendentalists, but Whitman was the first to really write about America in a literal and physical way. He was more than just a philosopher. He came out and defined what America should stand for.
Whitman preached a gospel of universal brotherhood. We all share a common bond. He promoted racial equality, and in the aftermath of the Civil War, he longingly wrote words to heal a wounded nation.
Whitman wrote of the beauty and humanity in everyone. He loved everyone. He wanted everyone to get along and see the positive qualities of each other. He snubbed no one, shunned no one. They all were equal to him, and they all were a part of him and his writing. He loved America, and he wanted America to love America.
Whitman was a poet who saw the divisions in the land that he loved, and I believe that was one of the driving reasons for his poetry. He tried very hard to bring everyone as equals. I do not feel I need to explain this any more, because if you read his works, this is all very clear. I just want to say that I see his pain in a divided nation, a nation that claimed freedom and equality yet turned on itself because it did not practice what it preached.
Now remember that Whitman was an early poet, from before the time that blacks were even considered fully human (yet he considered them fully human).
After Whitman, a lot of writers pop up searching for American identity as well as personal identity. There are regionalist writers who try to express the beauty of their area of the country, showing their own unique identity. This largely happened during a period after the Civil War when the country was having a hard time seeing itself as a homogenous entity. However, these displays of local flavor are what has come to define America, especially what we tend to refer to as "small town America." Here we see more of the American identity being clarified.
Entering the 1900s, a lot of American literature becomes centered on discrimination and acceptance. The Harlem Renaissance centers around the African-American and their search for equal standing in all aspects of American society. The feminist movement pops up. There are a lot of writers from ethnic minorities, gender minorities, sexual minorities, etc. Each of them wants to write their page in the history of America, to paint there picture on the canvas of American identity just like the regionalists before them.
African-Americans struggle against the superiority complex of the dominant whites. Gays and lesbians seek amnesty in a straight culture. Native Americans will not sit by and be ignored and undervalued any more. Mexican-Americans want to show that they are talented at more than just grunt work. Outspoken poets cry out for freedom and equality. The underprivileged and underrepresented strive to show the world that they are just as good as everyone else.
This is the story of modern American literature, and it all started way back with Walt Whitman. So many authors drew inspiration as well as courage from him. Take a survey class in American literature, and more than likely you will be just as apalled by the inequality as I am. History classes will try to make it all look like we are being progressive, but the truth is that no matter what we do or how we change, we always seem to be mistreating some minority somehow.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Racism and American Government
Either people talk about racism too little or they talk about it too much. I tend to talk about it a lot. When you study literature, it is very hard not to talk about racism. You see, one of the central themes of American literature is being accepted as an American.
It will be impossible for me to express all of my thoughts in one blog, but I would like to some day write a book about racism in American Literature.
One of the big problems about racism is that it tends to get the most face time of all of the forms of discrimination. I feel that religious discrimination tends to be more of an issue than racism is at times, and that a lot of racism actually comes from religious discrimination. Furthermore, discrimination according to lifestyle, whether that means sexual orientation or basic social preferences is also a big problem. I am so tired of this land that supposedly is founded on freedom and equality trying to restrict people's forms of expression and mistreating groups with different (not even opposite or opposing) viewpoints.
I do not have an interest in politics, but I do have an interest in people being treated with respect. I believe that God gave man a free will, and that man should be free to excercise that free will as he sees fit. I believe that the purpose of governments is to act as a shield to prevent man from using that free will in a way that will harm other people. Of course, I believe that some actions are wrong (what one might call a sin), but I have respect for the free will that God gave people, and I will not interfere with that, even if it contradicts my moral values, unless it is literally endangering someone else. For instance, I will not be against a person getting drunk if they feel the desire to (though I consider this to be a moral fault), yet I will be against driving while drunk because it endangers people. However, I do not have the same view towards drugs like cocaine due to the fact that the drugs themselves present a hazard to those who use them. If there are drugs that are safe to use with no forms of danger presented at all, then go for it. I have no problem.
I would, however, like to say that as I also have a respect for order. I believe that you should obey rules. If you are attending a show at a theatre, you should respect their house rules by shutting off your cel phone and not smuggling in treats. These are rules set up to promote fairness between people. Shutting off your cel phone makes like more pleasant for those around you, and refraining from smuggling treats is a way to show respect to the owners of the establishment (you could also view smuggling of treats as a harmful action toward them because it damages their profits; they are not out to get you). Government usually has similar reasons for the laws they create.
A lot of people think that our country was based on freedom. This is sort of true. Those who came and settle this land orignally were minority groups who sought to avoid persecution. However, when they got here, they more or less became imperialistic, trying to take over the land of others. That is not freedom. No one every called an invader a seeker of liberty. Also, when we rebeled from England, we did it for the money. As far as minority groups go, our new laws were comparable to the laws of England when it came to minorities. In fact, I believe that England progressed faster in relation to racism than America did. History confirms this. It really was all about taxation without representation, or fiscal liberty. Consequently, I believe that people's idea of "freedom" was largely influenced by their wallets.
I know there is a lot of idealism floating around in government, and I know there was back then. People wanted to make a better country than they had before, and if you take the interests of the people back then into account, I believe they did make a better country. However, I think there was too much greed interfering (again, all about the money) for people to really be willing to take up the cause of true liberty. The South did not give up their slaves. Greed. The North wanted to set up the rules to protect their goods. Greed. A lot of this was settled through the Civil War, but what did we end up with? A free country? No. We ended up with a violently racist country, and we still have not recovered from that.
As a result of the Civil War, America lost the freedoms protected by state's rights. Yes, I believe in state's rights because it demonstrates free will. People could move to the states that they felt best worked with their lifestyles. Unfortunately, now the national government and the Supreme Court feel that they can bully states into following political norms. Sometimes I agree with their decisions, though. Any loss of freedom for any group is wrong, unless it somehow literally protects others from a real danger. However, this situation gets a little dicey because then you are also restricting the freedom of another entity, local or state government. I think they still should have some say it what happens.
I have gotten a lot more political than I set out to be.
Basically, I believe everyone should have a fair shake at things and that government should not restrict that.
What I wanted to point out is that American government has been racist from the get go. Blacks were not considered completely human. Free blacks were not even allowed to vote, even if they had money. I am not exactly for discrimination against the poor, but I understand why they would want people to have money or property before they could vote. I also think it is a good incentive for people to get up and do something with their lives. Sorry about that tangent.
Anyways, blacks aren't humans, and Native Americans are not equals. Come on. Blacks are just as good as whites. Early colonial history could prove that easily. Native Americans were easily our equals. They were better than whites at warfare, even if they took cheap shots sometimes. They had the capacity to be just as "civilized" as we were. Heck, they could have created their own state and fit in just fine. Why did we have to run them out and over? We could have let them integrate with us, or even integrate with them! Same goes for blacks!
And why do we always think racism has to do with skin color? The Irish had a bum rap for decades and they were white. It did not matter about skin color, they just had to be not you in order for you to discriminate.
And we still face this problem of racism. The Mexicans are our new slaves. They face even more issues than the blacks did, because their situation is not as black and white as the earlier issue was (ok... bad pun).
But seriously, we have made the issues more complicated by trying to serve ourselves under the pretext of freedom. We make laws to protect America from future Americans. Why are they not Americans now? Because we don't want them to be. Oh, but we really do. Oh, but we really don't. And we never did. And that is why I hate it when people say America is a free country.
"You sit on a throne of lies."
America will only be free when everyone is treated equally. No, not in a socialistic way. It is not about the money. It is about the ideals and the values. When everyone has tolerance and respect for each other like the Ideal America would have, then America will be free. Right now its all about money and personal comfort. DC does not give a damn about you. They really don't. But we can change that by changing ourselves.
How?
Give a damn about the people around you. Learn to love them like yourself. It really is as simple as the Golden Rule. I don't care if you are a Christian or not. Follow it, and you will be surprised at how free our world will become.
It will be impossible for me to express all of my thoughts in one blog, but I would like to some day write a book about racism in American Literature.
One of the big problems about racism is that it tends to get the most face time of all of the forms of discrimination. I feel that religious discrimination tends to be more of an issue than racism is at times, and that a lot of racism actually comes from religious discrimination. Furthermore, discrimination according to lifestyle, whether that means sexual orientation or basic social preferences is also a big problem. I am so tired of this land that supposedly is founded on freedom and equality trying to restrict people's forms of expression and mistreating groups with different (not even opposite or opposing) viewpoints.
I do not have an interest in politics, but I do have an interest in people being treated with respect. I believe that God gave man a free will, and that man should be free to excercise that free will as he sees fit. I believe that the purpose of governments is to act as a shield to prevent man from using that free will in a way that will harm other people. Of course, I believe that some actions are wrong (what one might call a sin), but I have respect for the free will that God gave people, and I will not interfere with that, even if it contradicts my moral values, unless it is literally endangering someone else. For instance, I will not be against a person getting drunk if they feel the desire to (though I consider this to be a moral fault), yet I will be against driving while drunk because it endangers people. However, I do not have the same view towards drugs like cocaine due to the fact that the drugs themselves present a hazard to those who use them. If there are drugs that are safe to use with no forms of danger presented at all, then go for it. I have no problem.
I would, however, like to say that as I also have a respect for order. I believe that you should obey rules. If you are attending a show at a theatre, you should respect their house rules by shutting off your cel phone and not smuggling in treats. These are rules set up to promote fairness between people. Shutting off your cel phone makes like more pleasant for those around you, and refraining from smuggling treats is a way to show respect to the owners of the establishment (you could also view smuggling of treats as a harmful action toward them because it damages their profits; they are not out to get you). Government usually has similar reasons for the laws they create.
A lot of people think that our country was based on freedom. This is sort of true. Those who came and settle this land orignally were minority groups who sought to avoid persecution. However, when they got here, they more or less became imperialistic, trying to take over the land of others. That is not freedom. No one every called an invader a seeker of liberty. Also, when we rebeled from England, we did it for the money. As far as minority groups go, our new laws were comparable to the laws of England when it came to minorities. In fact, I believe that England progressed faster in relation to racism than America did. History confirms this. It really was all about taxation without representation, or fiscal liberty. Consequently, I believe that people's idea of "freedom" was largely influenced by their wallets.
I know there is a lot of idealism floating around in government, and I know there was back then. People wanted to make a better country than they had before, and if you take the interests of the people back then into account, I believe they did make a better country. However, I think there was too much greed interfering (again, all about the money) for people to really be willing to take up the cause of true liberty. The South did not give up their slaves. Greed. The North wanted to set up the rules to protect their goods. Greed. A lot of this was settled through the Civil War, but what did we end up with? A free country? No. We ended up with a violently racist country, and we still have not recovered from that.
As a result of the Civil War, America lost the freedoms protected by state's rights. Yes, I believe in state's rights because it demonstrates free will. People could move to the states that they felt best worked with their lifestyles. Unfortunately, now the national government and the Supreme Court feel that they can bully states into following political norms. Sometimes I agree with their decisions, though. Any loss of freedom for any group is wrong, unless it somehow literally protects others from a real danger. However, this situation gets a little dicey because then you are also restricting the freedom of another entity, local or state government. I think they still should have some say it what happens.
I have gotten a lot more political than I set out to be.
Basically, I believe everyone should have a fair shake at things and that government should not restrict that.
What I wanted to point out is that American government has been racist from the get go. Blacks were not considered completely human. Free blacks were not even allowed to vote, even if they had money. I am not exactly for discrimination against the poor, but I understand why they would want people to have money or property before they could vote. I also think it is a good incentive for people to get up and do something with their lives. Sorry about that tangent.
Anyways, blacks aren't humans, and Native Americans are not equals. Come on. Blacks are just as good as whites. Early colonial history could prove that easily. Native Americans were easily our equals. They were better than whites at warfare, even if they took cheap shots sometimes. They had the capacity to be just as "civilized" as we were. Heck, they could have created their own state and fit in just fine. Why did we have to run them out and over? We could have let them integrate with us, or even integrate with them! Same goes for blacks!
And why do we always think racism has to do with skin color? The Irish had a bum rap for decades and they were white. It did not matter about skin color, they just had to be not you in order for you to discriminate.
And we still face this problem of racism. The Mexicans are our new slaves. They face even more issues than the blacks did, because their situation is not as black and white as the earlier issue was (ok... bad pun).
But seriously, we have made the issues more complicated by trying to serve ourselves under the pretext of freedom. We make laws to protect America from future Americans. Why are they not Americans now? Because we don't want them to be. Oh, but we really do. Oh, but we really don't. And we never did. And that is why I hate it when people say America is a free country.
"You sit on a throne of lies."
America will only be free when everyone is treated equally. No, not in a socialistic way. It is not about the money. It is about the ideals and the values. When everyone has tolerance and respect for each other like the Ideal America would have, then America will be free. Right now its all about money and personal comfort. DC does not give a damn about you. They really don't. But we can change that by changing ourselves.
How?
Give a damn about the people around you. Learn to love them like yourself. It really is as simple as the Golden Rule. I don't care if you are a Christian or not. Follow it, and you will be surprised at how free our world will become.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Untitled Psalm
For the most holy God
From a lowly psalmist
With all my heart I thank You, Lord
You are my God forever
I'm struggling in vain
Clouds of sin block my sight of you
Waves of guilty shame
Hide me from Your light. It's true
I'm going down again
Helpless I raise my arms
While evil Satan grins
The third time is the charm
The just man falls down seven times
But I've failed You more than eight
Burdened down by all my crimes
In seas of guilty self hate
I know I am not strong enough
My flimsy arms will never do
And my spirit's beat by oceans rough
Lord, what I need is you
Lord, I breathe out this last breath of air
And with this breath my humble prayer
Lord, with your strong arms rescue me
And hold me in your hand
Lord, with your wings please shelter me
With your strength, help me stand again
Lord I am nothing and can never be
More than a failure without you
I was wrong, I now can see
How what You said was true
Lord, thank you for these trials
For carrying me those many miles
You are always only good to me
You're always there so faithfully
Lord, I am far from just
And I so many times will fail
But in Your strength I put my trust
And by Your strength I'll prevail
My lungs fill with new air
And my heart with a new song
My spirit with a thankful prayer
To the Almighty, my God so strong
-V
From a lowly psalmist
With all my heart I thank You, Lord
You are my God forever
I'm struggling in vain
Clouds of sin block my sight of you
Waves of guilty shame
Hide me from Your light. It's true
I'm going down again
Helpless I raise my arms
While evil Satan grins
The third time is the charm
The just man falls down seven times
But I've failed You more than eight
Burdened down by all my crimes
In seas of guilty self hate
I know I am not strong enough
My flimsy arms will never do
And my spirit's beat by oceans rough
Lord, what I need is you
Lord, I breathe out this last breath of air
And with this breath my humble prayer
Lord, with your strong arms rescue me
And hold me in your hand
Lord, with your wings please shelter me
With your strength, help me stand again
Lord I am nothing and can never be
More than a failure without you
I was wrong, I now can see
How what You said was true
Lord, thank you for these trials
For carrying me those many miles
You are always only good to me
You're always there so faithfully
Lord, I am far from just
And I so many times will fail
But in Your strength I put my trust
And by Your strength I'll prevail
My lungs fill with new air
And my heart with a new song
My spirit with a thankful prayer
To the Almighty, my God so strong
-V
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Guiding Virtues
Three things will last forever—faith, hope, and love—and the greatest of these is love.
-1 Corinthians 13.13 NLT
I would say that the three guiding virtues that I would choose would be faith, hope, and love.
Faith is an important guiding virute. You cannot make it through this life without believing in something. I do not mean just in a religious sense. There must be some fundamental ideology that becomes your driving force in life. It is something you believe in, and believing in something is faith. Even if you do not trust anything that all the people in the world of all time have to offer, you are expressing faith, faith that you yourself have a better way of doing things.
Hope is the bravest thing. In a way, it is derived from faith. Hope is waiting for what you believe in. It could be simplified by calling it faith combined with patience. However, this takes some of the beauty out of hope. Hope is a positive look on the circumstances of life. It is the belief in a better tomorrow. Those who lack hope do not necessarily lack faith, because one could litterally have faith in the failures of mankind.
Love is the greatest of all the virtues. Without love, there would be little beauty in the world, because love is choosing to look past the flaws and imperfections of humanity to see the simple and unique heartbeats of their existance. Each person has something special that they brought into the world with them when they were born, and love is being able to see that. Yes, they may look plain or even unattractive, but there is something more than meets the eye. Love brings that out of other people. That is why we make friends, because there are valuable things that we cannot bring to life without them.
I do need to clarify that self-love is not love at all. Self love is the only ugly thing in the world, because it chooses not to look at the beautiful things in the world. Loving yourself will cause you to have nothing to share with the world around you because you are hoarding it to your self. Life is to be shared. Hoarding is stealing. Self-love is a cancer that will kill the life and love of the world. That is why people make the distinction "true" love, because there is a love that is false. Those who love falsely, love themseves.
I know I took my answer from the Bible, but I think that this verse is right on. It certainly has helped me a lot, and I hope it can do so for everyone. Regardless, love is for everyone. Remember that.
-1 Corinthians 13.13 NLT
I would say that the three guiding virtues that I would choose would be faith, hope, and love.
Faith is an important guiding virute. You cannot make it through this life without believing in something. I do not mean just in a religious sense. There must be some fundamental ideology that becomes your driving force in life. It is something you believe in, and believing in something is faith. Even if you do not trust anything that all the people in the world of all time have to offer, you are expressing faith, faith that you yourself have a better way of doing things.
Hope is the bravest thing. In a way, it is derived from faith. Hope is waiting for what you believe in. It could be simplified by calling it faith combined with patience. However, this takes some of the beauty out of hope. Hope is a positive look on the circumstances of life. It is the belief in a better tomorrow. Those who lack hope do not necessarily lack faith, because one could litterally have faith in the failures of mankind.
Love is the greatest of all the virtues. Without love, there would be little beauty in the world, because love is choosing to look past the flaws and imperfections of humanity to see the simple and unique heartbeats of their existance. Each person has something special that they brought into the world with them when they were born, and love is being able to see that. Yes, they may look plain or even unattractive, but there is something more than meets the eye. Love brings that out of other people. That is why we make friends, because there are valuable things that we cannot bring to life without them.
I do need to clarify that self-love is not love at all. Self love is the only ugly thing in the world, because it chooses not to look at the beautiful things in the world. Loving yourself will cause you to have nothing to share with the world around you because you are hoarding it to your self. Life is to be shared. Hoarding is stealing. Self-love is a cancer that will kill the life and love of the world. That is why people make the distinction "true" love, because there is a love that is false. Those who love falsely, love themseves.
I know I took my answer from the Bible, but I think that this verse is right on. It certainly has helped me a lot, and I hope it can do so for everyone. Regardless, love is for everyone. Remember that.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Ikarus
You said "Let's fly"
And to the sky
You sprung on fledgling silver wings
I followed you
Into the blue
And held on to your precious hand
Your wings shone bright
You held me tight
And holding still to you I flew
My wings were dross
My flight was lost
As wings of wax melted away
Loving, holding
Still the falling
Me, you struggled with my dross as well
You still loved
Wings that melted
And clutched onto my breaking heart
My wings wax glossed
In waves were tossed
And you, still holding on, were lost
The dross I knew
Before we flew
Would bring us to this deadly fate
To let love win
Gone must be sin
'Til then, in patience love must wait
And to the sky
You sprung on fledgling silver wings
I followed you
Into the blue
And held on to your precious hand
Your wings shone bright
You held me tight
And holding still to you I flew
My wings were dross
My flight was lost
As wings of wax melted away
Loving, holding
Still the falling
Me, you struggled with my dross as well
You still loved
Wings that melted
And clutched onto my breaking heart
My wings wax glossed
In waves were tossed
And you, still holding on, were lost
The dross I knew
Before we flew
Would bring us to this deadly fate
To let love win
Gone must be sin
'Til then, in patience love must wait
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The Death of High Culture, Part 1
Google killed the analogy.
I was conversing with some friends of mine about a week ago, and some rather obscure connections were made during the conversation. I let it go at first, but since it was a serious conversation, I decided to step up and say something about staying on topic. Their reply? They thought that what they were saying was related to our conversation. The conversation then turned to analogies, and I found that their concept of an analogy was very general and broad.
Then they name dropped Google.
Google, a search engine, has become just as much of a literary authority, it seems, as Wikipedia has with miscellaneous information (this is an analogy). Say I search "black" on Google, and I come up with a picture of an actor, a dog, and a can of paint. Does that mean that they are related? Yes, but only loosely due to rather general external factors. Consequently, I do not see why people think that connections made through Google hold any weight, especially as analogies.
I thought about it a good deal, and I realized that most people probably learned what an "analogy" was just for college entrance exams. Additionally, the world that I live in is dominated by science. Cold, hard science. There is not much interest in the true beauty of words and how the interact with each other. As a result, I decided that I would try to explain analogies through some extended analogies one can find in mathematics and science.
Linear graphs show the strength. Say that there is a scatter plot of some data that has been collected, and you find that the correlation of the data is close to one. What does this say about the graph? It means that the data elements are very well related. I could give an entire tutorial on this, but that is not the point of the blog. Basically, all the points of the data plot are all very close to the linear graph that they generate if the correlation is "good" or "strong". If the correlation is "weak," the points are very loose about the line, and tend to be more scattered and random than like a line. A strong analogy is like a data plot with a strong correlation: the elements of the analogy are very closely related to each other, not scattered and random. Analogous thoughts are very close in what they share in common, not distant. They will have some separate elements, but what they hold in common, they hold very closely.
Everyone has also heard the expression "off on a tangent." For the lay people, a tangent is a line that shares one point with a circle and is completely separate everywhere else. According to my friend's logic, the tangent is closely related to the circle because it shares one point. Those who know math know that they are not. They do not have the same shape or slope. The formulas for both are different. However, if lines were parallel, they would have the same slope and shape. Their formulas would be exactly the same except for the x and y intercepts. The same thing goes for shapes. You can have shapes that are similar, or you can have shapes that are congruent. The definition of congruent is "coinciding at all points when superimposed." Few analogies are quite that strong, but they are very close to this. Most analogies are like similar shapes: a square is a square is not a circle. A circle is not similar to a square just because they are both shapes. Saying a square is a circle is a horrible connection to draw and a defective analogy. Similarly, a line is not a circle because it shares a point.
Consider that the circle is a conversation. It is enclosed, and centers around some central topic. Consider a point in the circle to be a thought. Now, consider that the tangent is another conversational topic that has one thought or element in common with original conversation. If you pursue this thought, then you are leaving the conversation. That only makes sense.
If the second conversation that is produced is more like a concentric circle than a tangent, then people usually do not notice, whether it smaller and more focused or broader. It has the same central topic, and people do not see expanding the topic or being more specific as changing the conversation.
Another example of an analogy is a conversion factor. One foot is to one inch as twelve is to one. Fractions are analogies. Equations are analogies. An engineer would not be able to work well without strong analogies. If one foot was to an inch as about ten is to a little more than zero, the world would be chaotic. I feel the same way with analogies. People need to keep their connections tight and orderly. "Random" has become a praised character trait. Not "orderly" or "creative" or "innovative." Just random. Random is not as good as people think it is, but I shall perhaps speak more on that another day.
Using Google is more or less like trying to fish in the Maelstrom. Chaos will get the better of you. I should not have to explain. Chaos does not make good analogies. Clean, precise, even scientific connections make good analogies.
-V
I was conversing with some friends of mine about a week ago, and some rather obscure connections were made during the conversation. I let it go at first, but since it was a serious conversation, I decided to step up and say something about staying on topic. Their reply? They thought that what they were saying was related to our conversation. The conversation then turned to analogies, and I found that their concept of an analogy was very general and broad.
Then they name dropped Google.
Google, a search engine, has become just as much of a literary authority, it seems, as Wikipedia has with miscellaneous information (this is an analogy). Say I search "black" on Google, and I come up with a picture of an actor, a dog, and a can of paint. Does that mean that they are related? Yes, but only loosely due to rather general external factors. Consequently, I do not see why people think that connections made through Google hold any weight, especially as analogies.
I thought about it a good deal, and I realized that most people probably learned what an "analogy" was just for college entrance exams. Additionally, the world that I live in is dominated by science. Cold, hard science. There is not much interest in the true beauty of words and how the interact with each other. As a result, I decided that I would try to explain analogies through some extended analogies one can find in mathematics and science.
Linear graphs show the strength. Say that there is a scatter plot of some data that has been collected, and you find that the correlation of the data is close to one. What does this say about the graph? It means that the data elements are very well related. I could give an entire tutorial on this, but that is not the point of the blog. Basically, all the points of the data plot are all very close to the linear graph that they generate if the correlation is "good" or "strong". If the correlation is "weak," the points are very loose about the line, and tend to be more scattered and random than like a line. A strong analogy is like a data plot with a strong correlation: the elements of the analogy are very closely related to each other, not scattered and random. Analogous thoughts are very close in what they share in common, not distant. They will have some separate elements, but what they hold in common, they hold very closely.
Everyone has also heard the expression "off on a tangent." For the lay people, a tangent is a line that shares one point with a circle and is completely separate everywhere else. According to my friend's logic, the tangent is closely related to the circle because it shares one point. Those who know math know that they are not. They do not have the same shape or slope. The formulas for both are different. However, if lines were parallel, they would have the same slope and shape. Their formulas would be exactly the same except for the x and y intercepts. The same thing goes for shapes. You can have shapes that are similar, or you can have shapes that are congruent. The definition of congruent is "coinciding at all points when superimposed." Few analogies are quite that strong, but they are very close to this. Most analogies are like similar shapes: a square is a square is not a circle. A circle is not similar to a square just because they are both shapes. Saying a square is a circle is a horrible connection to draw and a defective analogy. Similarly, a line is not a circle because it shares a point.
Consider that the circle is a conversation. It is enclosed, and centers around some central topic. Consider a point in the circle to be a thought. Now, consider that the tangent is another conversational topic that has one thought or element in common with original conversation. If you pursue this thought, then you are leaving the conversation. That only makes sense.
If the second conversation that is produced is more like a concentric circle than a tangent, then people usually do not notice, whether it smaller and more focused or broader. It has the same central topic, and people do not see expanding the topic or being more specific as changing the conversation.
Another example of an analogy is a conversion factor. One foot is to one inch as twelve is to one. Fractions are analogies. Equations are analogies. An engineer would not be able to work well without strong analogies. If one foot was to an inch as about ten is to a little more than zero, the world would be chaotic. I feel the same way with analogies. People need to keep their connections tight and orderly. "Random" has become a praised character trait. Not "orderly" or "creative" or "innovative." Just random. Random is not as good as people think it is, but I shall perhaps speak more on that another day.
Using Google is more or less like trying to fish in the Maelstrom. Chaos will get the better of you. I should not have to explain. Chaos does not make good analogies. Clean, precise, even scientific connections make good analogies.
-V
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Beginnings
One of the most difficult things for a writer to do is to start something. The first line sets the tone and the rhythm, then the pen steps to the music of the free flowing thought. Here I try to break the dam that has held back my thought.
The reason I created this blog is to unshackle thoughts that I suppress because I find myself already talking to much in class, not just my discussion based classes, but also my lectures. This is a weird problem I have not experienced before. I just want to get those thoughts out for some fresh air so they do not fester in my head. I also want to continue to explore some ideas I have had and hear what some people think on certain issues.
I also wish to use this blog to practice writing. I wish to be a profession writer someday, but I do not know which field. I most likely would do best at writing articles, but I do not really want to be a journalist. Mostly, I want to write poems and novels. I have ideas for several novels right now, and I plan to put samples of my work in this blog for you, my readers, to enjoy. I also will put up poems from time to time. In addition to this, I want to write some exploratory essays (I do not know what form they will take, so that is what I will call them for now. They also may very.) as I have described earlier.
This blog is not a forum to discuss topics. If you have something to say, keep it brief or contact me. I want my blog to be a gallery of thought, not a rude coffee house of intellect. I will not be a stickler about this, but I do request that you respect my wishes. One other thing I request: do not reveal my identity. Please, please do not refer to me by my given name. For this blog, and all my writing, my name is V. Just V. I want to write under a pseudonym, and I want to remain unknown. I do not predict or desire fame, so whether it comes or whether it stays, I choose the cloak of obscurity.
That will be all for my first posting. Orginally, I intended to make it interesting and philosophical, but I believe a nice introductory posting will suffice. Best of luck to you all!
-V
The reason I created this blog is to unshackle thoughts that I suppress because I find myself already talking to much in class, not just my discussion based classes, but also my lectures. This is a weird problem I have not experienced before. I just want to get those thoughts out for some fresh air so they do not fester in my head. I also want to continue to explore some ideas I have had and hear what some people think on certain issues.
I also wish to use this blog to practice writing. I wish to be a profession writer someday, but I do not know which field. I most likely would do best at writing articles, but I do not really want to be a journalist. Mostly, I want to write poems and novels. I have ideas for several novels right now, and I plan to put samples of my work in this blog for you, my readers, to enjoy. I also will put up poems from time to time. In addition to this, I want to write some exploratory essays (I do not know what form they will take, so that is what I will call them for now. They also may very.) as I have described earlier.
This blog is not a forum to discuss topics. If you have something to say, keep it brief or contact me. I want my blog to be a gallery of thought, not a rude coffee house of intellect. I will not be a stickler about this, but I do request that you respect my wishes. One other thing I request: do not reveal my identity. Please, please do not refer to me by my given name. For this blog, and all my writing, my name is V. Just V. I want to write under a pseudonym, and I want to remain unknown. I do not predict or desire fame, so whether it comes or whether it stays, I choose the cloak of obscurity.
That will be all for my first posting. Orginally, I intended to make it interesting and philosophical, but I believe a nice introductory posting will suffice. Best of luck to you all!
-V
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)