The Selling Out

This Friday is going to be more full than if I did schedule classes for the day. What the hell?
I have a meeting with David at 10 AM to discuss details concerning the senior research project IRB proposal and etc., followed by a meeting from 2 to 4 PM concerning a book we've been given to read (which I've yet to crack open) for McNair, culminating in ice skating sometime after 7 PM.
+More/-Less

It's not that the day is absolutely stuffed with things to do - really, this is no more than any other Friday, when I think about it - but all the things are coming at intervals which prevent me from doing the one thing I've been doing all semester: the long run. This week's run will take 2+ hours, so the only time span in there where I may have enough time to run+shower+eat is after the meeting with David but before the McNair meeting, but only if David's meeting lasts less than two hours. If I'm out of there by 11:30, I'll have the time to do the run and perhaps shower, eating an apple on the way or something. Otherwise, there's no point in even getting ready because I'll just be sweaty and disgusting. I might have time after the McNair meeting (which is looking like the prime time as of now), so I think it might get scheduled somewhere in there.

As for the title of this post, I'm polishing poems and stuff to start submitting. I'm not sure how it is going to go, but am hoping or aiming for pleasant. Problem: where to get started. No idea. Couldn't have one.

Class now. More post later? who knows.

-RKS

They Call it the Real Folk Blues

I've been watching Cowboy Bebop episodes with Allie via AllUC in an attempt to get her excited about one of my favorite television shows of all time. Anime is not usually my style, but some shows transcend the mostly sour genre we know as 'popular anime:' shows like Naruto, Bleach, Dragon Ball Z, Blue Dragon, Beyblade, and many others. There are a few gems in the anime world - very few in my opinion - which can hold my attention and keep it well.
+More/-Less

Most of these animes are ones which have plots I could see evolving into a modern or postmodern kind of way: the antihero, the villain who is by no means evil, just has an agenda, the intriguing plot twist. Stuff like Bebop makes me feel more faith in humanity's ability to come up with skillfully written plots and use new characters. I particularly like Bebop because of the mystery ingrained so deeply into every episode with regards to the characters' pasts: viewers are thrust into the action knowing very little about these so-called 'protagonists,' but know right away that these are the guys we're supposed to root for, flaws and poor judgments aside.

I went on another long-ish run tonight, an experience which was quite phenomenal. I ran without my watch for the first time in about a month, mostly because I cannot remember the last place it landed, but also somewhat because I decided to run today based solely on feel. I kept a pretty steady pace throughout: I would call it my marathon pace, were I a betting man. I sure felt like I could go another twenty miles after finishing six, but of course this would be subject to some re-evaluation once I reached, say, mile eighteen.

Running by feel, sans-watch, is pretty liberating when your life is dominated by the terms 'tempo,' '5k/10k/half/marathon pace,' 'easy,' 'interval,' and 'comfortably hard.' For some reason, I always put a timer on myself when it comes to these runs. I never really enjoy the beauty of a long, slow run; I always go about the same pace throughout. It's a weird situation: I run tempo runs at a 8:00/mile pace; I run all my other runs at this pace. My body just feels this is the pace to go. I need to vary these times, making my tempo runs significantly quick and my long runs significantly slower. My marathon pace is right around 8:20. Having a relaxing, long run at 9:00/mile pace is not going to destroy that, especially if my tempo runs become 7:20/mile pace.

-RKS

New Style Movement

Hello, folks, just a quick pre-homework posting to distract everyone.
I spent a bit of time going through the archives (luckily to this
point quite small) and decided upon a nifty little trick to make the
pages work a little more smoothly, i.e. to quash my ranting down to a
mere three or four paragraphs at most. You'll see the +/- (or, from
now on, +More/-Less) links on the longer posts. Clicking these links
will expand or collapse the post in the same window. Hope it makes
your browsing easier. Off to write 4-6 about Melancholy Play now.

Oh, you can go ahead and test it, if you so desire.

+More/-Less

Congratulations!
-RKS

'Ain't'

The Dictionary feature on my Macbook, based on the New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition, defines 'ain't' as (non-italicized brackets represent my own input, italicized represent those of the NOAD):

informal: contraction of
-am not; are not; is not [thus, a construction of 'to not be']: 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'
[ORIGIN: Originally representing London dialect]
-has not; have not [thus, a construction of 'to not have']: 'they ain't got nothing to say'
[ORIGIN: from dialect 'hain't'.]
+/-

The question this brings up in my mind is, of course, how in the world do we get the bastardized 'ain't' from am not (I'm not, or amn't?), are not (ooh! aren't!), and is not (isn't)? Worse yet, how do we arrive at a negative syntax construction from a negative contraction (hain't)? I can see how 'hain't' evolved into 'ain't' from the Brit dialect, fond of dropping H's ("'is 'ouse is 'appy coz 'is woif 'as 'it the roade") but how a contraction of 'has not' or 'have not' (usually followed by 'anything,' as in 'they havn't anything to say,' or 'they hain't anything to say') baffles me.
Or, rather, it used to, but I think I've the solution.

Look at the vast majority of speech in the US dialects of English. We're fond of the redundant colloquial construction 'have got' but use it improperly. Take the sentence 'I've got to shop,' for example. The extended form of the sentence is 'I have got to shop.' 'Got' in normal usage refers to the preterite form of 'to have,' i.e. 'I got the flu.' Thus, the proper form of 'to have + to get' is in the past participle, i.e. 'I have gotten (i've gotten) sick before.'
The main reason for using it in the present-tense construction of 'I have + infinitive' is because 'have' lacks a full stop consonant like t. Speakers can put more emphasis on their plight with that hard stop: 'I've got to get this assignment done' can be more emphatically and powerfully delivered than 'I have to get this assignment done.' It also aspirates less, so the chances of blowing your audience away with your Phelps like lungs (toke, suckah!) is minimized. Making the 'have got' construction is as easy as adding a one-word negative after the got: 'I've got no time,' 'I've got nothing to do.' It easily follows the positive contraction's rules for changing to negative, though no more so than the previously-stated-to-be-correct have + infinitive.

Since 'hain't' is a dialectical shift of 'hasn't' or 'haven't' and a modernizing shift from archaic 'ha'en't,' it's easy to see why this changes. However, 'hain't' is a negative contraction - the adding of 'got + negative' makes a double negative, when the word following 'hain't,' as with all negative contractions, must be positive: 'I hain't anything to do today,' rather than 'I hain't nothing to do today.'

Suffice to say, 'have got' (and its brethren) and 'ain't' (as a bastard child of other contractions) are on my shit list. [...]

There's a Reason Facebook was Made for Procrastination

Does anyone else feel like the 'objective' message which pops up in the Facebook status box - 'What are you doing right now?' - fails miserably at being objective and passes itself off as accusatory? I cannot help but put exorbitant amounts of emphasis on parts which make it sound to my ears like a wronged lover: 'what are you doing right now?'

I'm not doing my homework, you bloodsucker, and it's all thanks to you and your globalized popular culture!
+/-

Mount Pleasant was, for once, quite pleasant over these past few weeks, save Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Thursday and Friday were bitter cold: I awoke Saturday to no snow - none - and fell asleep to a foot. Twelve inches of snowfall! How the hell am I supposed to run in that? Very carefully, I suppose.

Well, luckily my running days are moving indoors. Unluckily, all my runs require certainly larger amounts of mileage, so indoors is going to be a slog of laps. Loathesome, effing laps.

Core work makes me feel strong and fit. Then I sit down and eat. It's a fun dance.

Looked at a bit of a different training program for the marathon - I like this one better. It's from Runner's World, a link to which you can find on the sidebar to your right. I would recommend it highly.

Last week, our HON 321A - American Independent Cinema class watched Francois Truffaut's Les Quatres Cents Coups, i.e. The 400 Blows (1959). It has firmly planted itself onto my list of 20 favorite films. Hey, I might as well list them.

1. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
2. 300
3. Garden State
4. Reign Over Me
5. Love Actually
6. The Notebook
7. The Princess Bride
8. Robin Hood: Men in Tights
9. Love Me if You Dare
10. Into the Wild
11. Rudy
12. Radio
13. A Lot Like Love
14. We Were Soldiers
15. The 400 Blows
16. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
17. Requiem for a Dream
18. American Beauty
19. American Psycho
20. The Dark Knight

As you can probably tell, most of my posts lack focus. We of the postmodern mindset call it pastiche.

See you bright and early tomorrow for summer class registration antics, some early-morning running, stretching/core work and some form of breakfast, data entry and analysis, then class.

I just realized that, regardless of whatever my better judgment may be, my days are becoming increasingly front-loaded. I do not like this. I like sleeping in. I also like ending sayings in prepositions. Take that, English.

Oh, you know I'm sorry, baby. Don't be like that.
-RKS

Musings on Writing

I've published* one measly book of poetry thus far in my life; completed four research endeavors (two in Psychology as of now, two in English as of now); am working on three more research endeavors (two in psychology, one in English), as well as another volume of poetry and perchance a book of short stories; and am currently quite happy with everything as written in life.

Where is this going, you folks ask. Well I will tell you. I will.
+/-

Publishers. It's a vague kind of word, not in the sense that a person does not know what a publisher is or what one does, but rather that one seeking publishing does not concisely know just how to contact them or break into the realm of publishing. Of course, there are the giants of publishing: Penguin, Norton, etc., but what of smaller presses which do not mind new works by fledgling authors? That's the sort of influence I'm working on. I want to find my place in an editor's heart, be granted some kind of tenure with a publisher, and have contracts to write something for some kind of monetary reward. Yes, that would be lovely.

Maybe I'll pair some poetry with my short stories and start shopping it around to publishers to garner some interest. I'd really like to be published. That's a feat in and of itself.

-RKS out.

The Long Run: Musing

Going on another 13 miler today, so musings are sure to follow sometime this afternoon.

Not an Old Post, Thankfully

I just watched a video on runner's world that was pretty intriguing, featuring correspondent Jeremy Mosher running the famous NYC Run Up competition.

The race has been run since 1977 and put on by the NY Roadrunners running group. Current records are 9:30 for men and 11:23 for women. In it, runners race both the clock and other competitors to reach the observation deck as quickly as possible - 86 flights from ground level.

Here's the vid: Jeremy Mosher v. Empire State Building
+/-

His reaction was normal. He starts the hill fresh and happy ('this is easier than Freshman Spanish'), then dies about 25% up ('me no gusto,' which is incorrect Spanish, btw). He finished in a respectable 16:45, just about 6 minutes behind the winner.

Now, I've run hills. Northern Michigan cross-country will do that to a person. However, even with all my training and fitness as of now, I'm not sure I could do the challenge in even that kind of time. Mount Pleasant is notoriously flat ('where the hell is the mountain?'), and my hills have been limited to a small rise and maybe some stairs - but not 86 flights of them.

So, woke up this morning thinking of running, decided to let my rest day be a rest day in light of the 19 degree, snowy, windy day that lay before me. 11 mph? no thanks.

Joe's a bit off-key today.

I do believe I'm getting sick. Not sick as in diseased, or plagued, or whatever you want to call it, but sick as in somewhat insane. There was a time (not too long ago, I might add) in which I would've called two slices of cold pizza the ultimate breakfast, bar none. This morning I woke up, headed for the dining hall, and had oatmeal with almonds and a banana mixed in and a plate of eggs. Granted, these were some disgusting eggs and soupy oatmeal (I like mine drier than most), but it was, for some reason, the best breakfast I've eaten in a long time.

Paczki day!
-RKS

Old Post: A Proclamation for Leaders

Proclamation: On the Proscription of Political Dissent and the Termination of Acumen

Organized political dissent not only deteriorates the strength of the body politic (that is, the proletariat, or most populous class in the vast majority of societies) by creating rifts between unlike-minded individuals and groups, but also erodes the stability of any government which is subjected to its mutinous ardor for the same reasons. The main issue and destructive force behind this dissent is, of course, the organization. Historical examples of small, well-commanded bands of “revolutionaries” seizing power from much larger and more exquisite governments. The Bolsheviks, led by atheist Vladimir Lenin, led an armed uprising against the fair and noble Czars in the 1917 Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya, or October Revolution. Spain’s powerful and respected Prince Philip II’s Armada Invencible, Grande y Felicísima was traitorously attacked in 1588 by Queen Elizabeth I’s roguish and dastardly (and vastly inferior) navy as it returned home from honorable exercises near Ireland.
+/-

The lessons which can be gleaned from the historically disappointing losses in the face of political upheaval are invaluable ones to any director of power in any governmental system. As a man of reason, sound mind, and good conscience, I feel it my duty to inform the world and my own ruling powers of not only the perils which may be rising at this very time, but also of precautions and methods which may be employed to cool the rising tempers which threaten to burst into mutiny or to mitigate damages received, should ample support be collected by the radicals responsible for any political upheavals.

The first principle to be understood for the absolute protection of the aristocracy and governmental power is that the illusion of democratic power must be sustained at all times, regardless of the government’s true nature. Any ignorant layman can run a government as an iron-fisted dictator, provided he has the necessary resources, provisions, and influence to enact fear as a means of control, but a true Machiavellian genius is required to sustain a functional, stable government of any kind for any appreciable amount of time. These gifted leaders understand the value of trust and respect over fear as a way of governing the plebeian masses. The easiest way to find favor in the eyes of the masses is to allow them the illusory freedom to “nominate” representative council members which they feel can accurately appropriate their beliefs and pseudo-self-created moral and ethical codes. Furthermore, members of this democratic system must have groups dedicated to and organized around certain value and belief systems to which they may claim membership. This act of party creation gives voters an identity to cling to and an indoctrinated framework of morals and beliefs to which they may automatically defer. If questions arise during the nomination process, nominees may fall back on their party’s ideology for answers; voters may do the same in order to find both a sense of individuality between groups and simultaneously a sense of camaraderie within their party. Of course, the true reasoning for these parties is twofold: first,to divert attention away from the actual governing group. While you, the Machiavellian Virtuoso Leader, make decisions based on your agenda, the parties interpret the news you feed them into publicly acceptable pieces of information which are now tinged with a hint of the party’s doctrine. Members of opposing parties argue over these interpretations, blame other parties, rally against one another, and attempt to balance the reins of “power” between parties to prevent an illusory dictatorship, thus allowing you to continue your personal political conquest relatively unquestioned. Secondly, the creation of parties allows the leader to control the paradigms of ideology (and thus the perpetuation of ideologies through all forms of culture and cultural institutions) by quietly nursing the correct values for parties. Parties which propose changes that are acceptable to the leader receive subtle backing to provide them more following and prevent dissent outside the acceptable range of entropy, as set by the leader; parties which propose unacceptable ideas are squelched by the lack of support and general consensus of the populace.

The creation of parties also benefits the Machiavellian leader by allowing her to filter her own ideologies and paradigms into the realm of acceptable ideas -- what is colloquially known as “common sense” -- for the population. This practice is know as hegemony, and is undeniably necessary for the creation and survival of a healthy society (hegemony is the machine which prevents dissenting parties from forming, when executed properly). Through subtle manipulation, leaders may shift hegemonic ideas and practices in the form of cultural norms, taboos, and logic. This process may be carried out in several ways. First, the leader may choose members for nomination who are in harmony with the proper values needed to further the ideologies she espouses by presenting certain charismatic members of the middle upper class proletariat as suitable candidates for nomination (an act derisively called “planting confederates” by anarchists, but better known as “selective presentation”), or, second, by a more direct method of selection depending on electoral colleges: groups created to elect in the best interests of the generally politically uneducated populace. These electoral colleges choose their representatives based on the goals of the party which, as discussed earlier, prevents new “leaders” within the democratic system from straying too far outside the acceptable boundaries of the party’s beliefs. Party members who stray outside the belief system are outcast and ostracized by society -- this is a necessary evil which must be carried out to prevent new ideas from taking root and creating upheavals. The third and most dangerous option for the leader is to allow the democracy to elect officials, then nurture the eager candidates into the proper beliefs. This practice is highly dangerous, as it allows a grain of individuality into the mix -- a grain which, though small, may sprout roots in the proper conditions and, with its disastrous growth, splinter the once-stable foundations of government like tree roots erupting through and sabotaging meticulously laid patches of concrete.

Much painstaking work by Machiavellian leaders has gone into amassing incredible knowledge of the ways into people’s hearts and precisely how to collect the respect of the moderately informed, a point which speaks distinctively to their credit. That, however, is not the true mark of governing genius, but rather of a well-educated sociologist or psychologist. The true medallion of honor in usage of their highly-tuned sense for the human condition is the creation of systems of power and ideological apparatuses which can perpetuate her personal ideologies and codes of ethics. A leader must not only understand the writings and beliefs of Niccolo Machiavelli, but also the writings and philosophy of Louis Althusser and his protégé Michel Foucault. Without writing an entire explanation of these philosophies (which could, admittedly, require far more time than should be acceptable for any busy leader desperate for protection from uprisings) the true essence of the idea is lost somewhat. What is presented, however, should be enough to allow any intelligent government leader to introduce the necessary apparatuses for a well-functioning societal and cultural system.

Systems of ideology, called ideological apparatuses, work not only to perpetuate the leader’s specified ideologies, but also to perpetuate themselves, making them the perfect addition to any busy leader’s repertoire of governing techniques: like cacti, they require only seeding, natural conditions (which are abundant) and a modicum of intervention to nurture them healthily. Ideological apparatuses function by installing ideologies into the cultural institutions that society itself desires and perpetuates almost instinctively! Concepts such as respect, honor, and dignity can be plugged into any institution (such as the military, religious groups, the concept and realization of the family unit, systems of education, labor, and even the cultural artifacts like literature and the visual arts) and consistently propagate. Noticeably, many of the institutions complement one another or even work to create and continue one another: the system of religion creates the family unit, which recreates the need for religion as a desire for understanding of the unknown; from the ideological concept of “success,” families educate their children at schools (which further indoctrinate the importance of success, religion, family, and other ideas) and prepare for the work force. The work force rewards those who excel at continuing the cycle by rewarding hard work, dedication, and initiative -- ideologies which are in turn recycled back into the other institutions and perpetuate indefinitely. A leader can at any time shift this by the use of power.

“Power” in this sense correlates with expertise and accountability. Only those who are experts in a given field may define abstract concepts such as “lawful acts” and “unlawful acts,” “sanity” and “insanity,” or “normal” and “taboo.” By limiting the methods in which a person may come into power, leaders create a way to ensure that the correct evolutions of ideology occur with minor tweaking and influence. For example, the construct of “sanity” and its inverse “insanity” are created by the knowing collective group of experts in the field of psychology. Only those who are trained masterfully in this field may contribute their ideas to the discourse which defines the otherwise abstract and arbitrary concept of “sanity.” Those without training are unable to give input into the discourse, as their ideas are dismissed by the majority in power; this dismissal can occur in two ways. First, it can be a simple negative response: the person’s idea dies at the doorstep, barely heard. The other dismissal, which aids the perpetuation of power systems and ideologies, is in labeling the new idea as part of the inverse. Those who are labeled “insane” may not participate in a discourse designed to define the quality of “sanity.” To allow someone who has demonstrated actions, beliefs, or other misconducts that are contrary to a construct (like law or sanity) into the discourse is pure madness; the power systems know this, and instinctively repel any dissent by casting cultural stigmas onto the dissenters. The same holds true in all forms of ideological discourse: the “lawless” are unable to define what should and should not be a law, because “common sense” (that hegemonic wizard!) says that a criminal would only try to make crimes legal; someone who acts in a taboo way would be trying to soil the moral fabric of the society; and someone who is insane would have a skewed understanding of reality and be thus unable to truly define normative experience.

One may ask herself: “what of new generations? Could they not break out of this cycle with only minimal radical intervention?”, and she should not fear: these plans have failsafes installed. The process of interpellation demands of humans that they subject themselves to an ideology in order to find identity and, ultimately, purpose. To be interpellated is to be called out to (“hey you!”) and acknowledge the calling (“this is me”). The interpellated party becomes the subject, and is subjected to the essence of that to which they identify: “hey you, Joe” subjects an individual to the arbitrary name “Joe,” while “hey you, capitalist” subjects him to the arbitrary ideal of capitalism. Even if the subjection is incorrect -- a person named Robert instead of Joe, or a socialist instead of capitalist -- then the effect still occurs! The interpellated party identifies (and subjects himself to) the concept of “Robert” or “socialism” in defining himself as different from “Joe” and “capitalism.” Because of the demands of a identity in the human mind, individuals and groups are deeply ingrained to find ways to define themselves: they find and accept a social role, such as being female, white, and upper-middle class. In this way, they are always interpellated while simultaneously already interpellated: that is, they are the always-already.

The second lesson should be completely clear at this point: any intelligent and poised leader knows to let human nature do the work for her. These systems of natural order which humans apply to themselves with frightening ease perpetuate themselves, yet are easily malleable to those in the know (i.e., you, Machiavellian-Structuralist Leader). One can be simply implanted into a culture and it will not only grow and thrive on its own with minimal interference, but also create the other two out of necessity and nature, leaving you time to further your agenda while your people are distracted by the meanings of their everyday lives. This second lesson extends into the third lesson in an important way.

The third and final lesson explains the easiest way to cleanly quash any rebellions which may arise from dissent among the ranks, and combines neatly with the second lesson: let the people do the work. Any revolutionary will need numbers to execute any uprising: without popular backing, a political coup is a fool’s errand at best and a suicide mission at worst. Preventing upheavals from gaining steam and gathering support does not require much in the way of work beyond installing the proper values into a system. Once this simple but critical piece is in place, the remainder of the puzzle practically solves itself. The people, empowered by their illusion of intelligence and common sense, will dismiss politically radical views and attempts in the same way a sheep will dismiss a dandelion; they will pay it no heed, give it no support, and let it die as it is trampled beneath normal cultural activity. Leaders of uprisings can be swayed by their peers to feel remorse or guilt for holding their own opinions or believing themselves to be correct and the ruling party in the wrong. They will slink back to their homes, defeated, grumbling about the unfairness of it all, but will abandon their radical ideas in favor of demurring to the common good so as to not send more waves through their circle of friends that has reprimanded them for their foolish ways.

With so many tools at her disposal, a governmental leader is free to do anything she wants and to change the beliefs of her governed people, so long as she has willing participants, which are fortunately in great excess. The leader benefits from those expecting to be in leadership positions in their community because of their absolute and unbending desire to please so as to further their own careers, however cosmically pointless they may be. This realization never crosses the minds of these potential puppets, of course, simply because their own illusions of greatness have blinded them into attending boot camps, councils, meetings, and seminars, reading pamphlets, textbooks, and articles on arbitrary ways to empower their resumés. The leader need not worry about them, however, as all they know and understand is how to perpetuate the system of government in which they reside, and possess no true threat.

It is with great hope that this essay comes to a close: great hope for the future of our fair autarchy, led by our striking, mercenary, and Machiavellian leader, may her reign be blest and afflicted with only the greatest of minds suited for her control; hope for our pugnacious and desirable government’s well-deserved lifespan; and for the hope of our free, logical reasoners who humbly offer our services to our modestly informed rulers.

Old Posts: Deciphering Cake

My good friend and fellow scholar Alex Green and I were discussing various maladies in the world - for example, why sharks have a weak point they cannot defend when they are otherwise such formidable, efficient killing machines - when we stumbled upon the existential crisis of 'cake,' to which we can confidently say that 'the "cake" is a lie.'

Our deduction was a simple one at which to arrive in light of common logic and reasoning, but several hurdles - or waist-high walls - needed to be addressed before we could fully realize just how much of a lie the 'cake' indeed was.
+/-

The investigation commenced first with a discussion of the common and foolish saying 'having one's cake and eating it, too.' We decided that this was really the kind of saying which, like so many other anecdotes, says nothing. If 'one' has 'cake,' then why should 'one' not feel obliged to 'eat it?' 'Cake' lacks aesthetic qualities which make it a suitable decoration; when one receives 'cake,' one does not often say to oneself, 'why, this is a fine-looking pastry. I believe I shall place you on my mantle and look longingly at you every day.' The only instance we could think of that could drive a person to not eat said 'cake' is if person is baking the 'cake' for someone else, or perhaps for use in a kind of bartering system (in which, a 'cake' is roughly equivalent to a goat with a bell-collar, two chickens, and a moldy orange). In each of these instances, however, one can easily note that the 'cake' is no longer truly property of the 'one;' thus, 'one' does not 'have' the 'cake' per se, but is rather holding the 'cake' until further use by its final owner, who shall inevitably 'eat' the 'cake.'

Of course, this line of reasoning brings us to another important topic of discussion: is it possible to 'eat' a 'cake' without ever having 'had' the cake? A person could lean over and pilfer a gargantuan maw-full of moist, delicious 'cake' held by someone else, I suppose, but does not the mere 'eating' of the 'cake' imply ownership of said 'cake,' as certainly none other than he who ate it shall 'have' it? No matter what the circumstance, 'eating' a 'cake' - whether owning it prior to the 'eating' or not - implies an inseparable characteristic of 'having' the 'cake' as well - thus, we must always 'have our cake and eat it, too.'

This brings up the existential crisis: what, then, is a 'cake?' Would not what was once known as a 'cake' become un-'cake'-like during the digestive process? What general characteristics define the 'cakitude,' or 'magnitude of cakiness,' of any object labeled a 'cake?' We set out to define just what intrinsic (and, perhaps, extrinsic) values defined 'cakehood.' We looked first at the exterior: a 'cake' is almost certainly of a crusty nature, though not as much as 'bread' and yet more so than its brethren 'the pudding' (in which the proof may be found). It is a fluffy crust, soft, yielding, and rich, composed mostly of sugar, eggs, butter, and flour. The interior is curiously moist and supple, crafted not by conventional convection heating, but instead by steam-heating delivered by the evaporation of a liquid ingredient, usually milk, oil, applesauce, or water, which creates bubbles in the 'cake' as it bakes. Frosting is optional, though almost always composed of either a simple syrup, a sugar-based spread, or a cream-cheese based spread, with other options coming into play based on personal preference. The basics are thus: Soft outer crust with a moist, decadent inner network of microbubble layers. Upon finding the functional definition of 'cake,' we decided that the process of 'eating' a 'cake' does not alter its being so completely as to change it into something other than 'cake.' Note well, however, that during the digestive process what was once known as 'cake' is no longer 'cake,' but instead a concentration of unspeakable evil which does horrible things to waistlines and appetites alike. I digress.

In our findings, however, we became startlingly aware of an advancement in 'cake' technologies - 'cakenology' - the 'cheesecake.' This bastard child of the 'cake' and 'pie' somehow slipped into the realm of 'cakehood' without containing sufficient 'cakiness' to apply for remotely enough 'cakitude' to qualify as a true 'cake.' However, there it was, staring viciously in front of us, coiled like a serpent, ready to envenom us: the 'cheesecake.' Thinking quickly, we decided that the 'cheesecake' is really no more than a 'pie.' Then, it dawned on us: what of other 'pies' with the same characteristics as 'cheesecake?' What of pumpkin, or lemon chiffon, or open-faced mud 'pies?' If 'cheesecake' was considered a cake, certainly 'pumpkin pie,' a creature of nearly the same composition, was worthy of the title of 'pumpkin cake?' Alas, we remembered that a 'pumpkin cake' already exists, adhering beautifully to the original commandments of 'cakiness.' It was then, faced with this existential crisis, that we decided that 'cake' is a lie.

If a 'cake' can be both a 'cake' and a 'pie,' what else could it be? Do 'cakes' have a sentience, much like ourselves? Are they capable of acting upon this existential crisis, of forcing their existence to precede their essence? Could a 'cake' become the next president of the United States? Could a 'cake' become a 'biscuit' ('teacakes!') or a 'muffin,' ('cupcakes!') or, God save us, a 'health food' ('rice cakes!')? We decided then and there, in the bitter mid-Michigan wind, to rename the 'cake' to something more suitable:

The Edible. Edible, formerly entered in common usage as an adjective, would fulfill its oft-neglected role of noun, but this time as a singular. No longer would 'edibles' be items of food - no. 'Edibles' will from now on be what once were 'cakes' and their brethren, the 'cupcake,' the 'teacake', the 'rice cake,' and yes, even the formidable 'wedding cake' (miniature sugar-people excluded). Note: 'edible' is a perfect synonym with 'deliciousness' in its new meaning. The 'cheescake,' however, remains its own class of pastry: the open-faced pie.

Old Posts: A Summary of 'The Day Eveleth Defines Religion': Or, Eveleth, Religion, Definition

For those of you with valuable time, here is my previous note, condensed into a summary stylized after Cliff's Notes.
+/-

Religious conflict, whether it be in the realm of academic discussion or all out physical conflict, is in essence a practice in futility. Religions are like poorly written research essays, which cite themselves as proof of their own existence; they are mired in circular logic and claim themselves to be 'absolute truth' or the method by which one may attain such a lofty abstraction. Of course, reasoning that a religion is the 'correct' religion based off of that particular religion's scripture, created solely to provide a fact-like mythology for that religion, is fallacious. No religion will acknowledge another religion's scripture as 'factual,' somewhat because they recognize that their own scripture is mostly didactic myth and mostly because all religious arguments boil down to pissing matches between imaginary friends. Arguing religions is no more academic than arguing intrinsic, immutable opinions or politics. The simple reason for this is because there can be no 'absolute truth' available to prove any side right or wrong, because everything in the universe is relative to all other objects in the universe; the complex reason is explained thusly:

Hegel's 'Herrschaft und Knechtschaft,' or 'Master-Slave Dialectic' theory: when two equally sentient beings come in contact with one another, they will struggle for supremacy until one conquers the other. The triumphant being becomes the Herr, Lord, or Master, and the other becomes Knecht, In Bondage, or Slave. In this process, the Master becomes the privileged Primary being, while the Slave becomes the secondary Other being, seen in relation to the Primary.

Althusser theorizes that the Master creates Ideological State Apparatuses to maintain its ideology amongst the proletariat (Other, Slave) because the Power class is much smaller than the proletariat. Without realizing it, all actions taken by the Other propagate the ruling ideology and its ISAs - the proletariat is always-already interpellated by the ISAs.

Foucault theorizes that the Master, much smaller than the proletariat, creates rules for changing the ISAs by forcing individuals to become 'experts' in the field (via more education and therefore more exposure to ISAs). The uneducated proletariat becomes marginalized in the discussion regarding various pieces of the ruling Ideology, such as Law, Sanity, and Education, among others. Any who dissent against the Ideology are marginalized further and completely excluded from the discussion - this includes those who are considered 'criminals' or 'insane.'

de Beauvoir theorizes that an Other (such as woman) remains marginalized because the Primary privileges itself by creating cultural artifacts like language and art which accommodate them and exclude the Other. In the case of Woman/Man, Man creates and controls language, so woman does not have language to explain or understand her situation (the 'female condition' being mythologized and forced to assimilate by men), and thus has no way in which to escape her situation as long as men control the language and culture. However, woman is not born as the Other - there is no essence inherent in 'womanhood' preceding her existence which forces her to be marginalized - but instead forced into it by the society into which she is born. Thus, she defines her essence through her existence and therefore by her relations to others in the world.

Derrida explains that all objects, ideas, beings in existence follow this model, including and especially language. Language is comprised of signs (words) and signifieds (concepts) which are arbitrarily related to one another. The word 'bread' has many iterations in other languages because the concept of 'bread' (as we know it) has no essence of 'breadiness' which forces it to be named 'bread.' Thus, words are not names for things, but pleasing sounds strung together to divide our world into manageable chunks. Different languages chunk things differently.

Religion works on the premise that there is an all-powerful, all-seeing 'God' which transcends these realizations about the material world. This assumption is a Western mistake known as 'logocentrism,' the belief that meaning is self-present within a word. A word with self-presence is known as a transcendental signified. Transcendental signifieds cannot exist because essence cannot precede existence. Thus, a 'God' would be a singular concept, in which the word 'God' would always have to mean the same concept in all languages. There could be no wavering - no language could have another word for 'God' because it would be misnamed. Because the word and the concept fluctuate, it is not self-present - its definition and being is directly correlated to its differance, or its difference between all other things and the constant deferral of meaning to these differences, ad infinitum.

Also, no movie can be labeled 'The Best' because that would be logocentric, but Fargo is pretty sweet.

Now go plug this into your papers without citing it so you can get a B+ in your cultural theory class.

Old Posts: The Day Eveleth Defines Religion

Religious conflict or holy war will never occur in the realm of logical thought, I feel. All religions which seek to actively convert are, at their cores, opinion-based belief systems, mired inextricably in their own delusions of absolute truth. This notion of 'absolute truth' is far and away the worst concept to emerge from Western rationality in the history of philosophy, yet it permeates the very fiber of existence in any Westerner's thought processes and language. We seek 'truth' in all endeavors: in the sciences, we theorize what we believe is 'fact,' yet in any conversation regarding the validity of these discoveries, the inevitable interjections 'the truth is,' or 'actually,' or 'in reality' will emerge to refocus the conversation and shift the power struggle in favor of he or she who spoke the line.
+/-

According to post-structuralist theory, nothing in the universe can be self-present: that is, its existence relies solely on itself and not on the presence of other things to validate it. For example, Hegel theorizes a model known as Herrschaft und Knechtschaft - Lordship and Bondage, commonly known as the Master-Slave Dialectic. The issue problematized by the M-SD is of the discovery of absolute knowledge; Hegel mythologizes a story of a being, solitary and therefore unconscious of its own existence. When another being is introduced, the primary being and the secondary being are astounded at the presence of another being in their world. They must struggle with one another in order to define themselves and understand absolute knowledge - a struggle to the death. However, in death the discovery fails, so one must take on the role of 'lord' or 'master' and the other the role of 'bondage' or 'slave.' Thematically, the story explains the requisition of 'other' in order to define 'being;' that is, the metaphysics of presence requires other things in the universe which a thing cannot be.

Poststructuralist cultural theorist and philosopher Michel Foucault (as well as his mentor Louis Althusser) designed cultural theory based upon this idea of Master and Slave. Althusser wrote on Ideological State Apparatuses and the methods by which they propagate through and exert control over the culture from which they emerge; Foucault wrote regarding the Power struggle in a society, which ultimately leads to ISAs and the exertion of control over the proletariat by the ruling class.

According to Althusserian logic, a ruling group creates Apparatuses that naturally spawn Institutions, which outline, exemplify, and reify their belief systems, moral codes, and cultural expectations. Examples of Apparatuses are Family Ideologies, Moral Ideologies, Social Ideologies, and Educational Ideologies. Institutions spawned via Apparatuses include ideological norms such as Marriage and Family, Schools and Churches, Political Parties and Military, and Cultural Artifacts like paintings, books, and music. These institutions interpellate - subjectify - residents of a culture from birth, creating an always-already interpellated proletariat: they are always interpellated because they learn and act in response to Institutions, and already interpellated because they are born into the system and hardwired to propagate the system. Let us follow an example, Horace.

Horace is born into a family unit, in this society comprised on a male and female adult, legally married, who have children after marriage. Horace is already exposed to a normative 'normal' family life with a mother, father, and the necessity of the family for survival. From birth, Horace will value the Family unit if he wishes to have children. Of course, the question must arise: why should he want that?
Horace will go to school, meet with peers, attend church, and read cultural artifacts which will make statements regarding the cultural norms of his society. In school, he will be taught that normal people make families of one man, one woman, a marriage, and child(ren). Church will push the concept of marriage further, perhaps explaining that not marrying and having children is in some way sinful because it opposes the natural order of an unseen, unfelt, yet somehow omnipotent and omnipresent god. Books he reads will, by nature of being created in this society, react to marriage and the family: if they fight against it, they will surely be seen as radical, but if they validate it - even subtly, perchance because characters in the story are parts of loving families, or maybe psychologically wounded because they do not have a normal family - then the book will gain praise in the culture and be embraced, furthered, copied, and taught to future generations for later regurgitation.
When Horace becomes an adult, he will side with the Political Party which represents his ideologies well. However, political parties tend to be carefully developed to work on the level of more or less arbitrary points of political dissent. No matter what party becomes the one in power, it will still propagate the existence of the ruling Ideology, though in slightly different ways - none significant enough to change anything. He will support the military via patriotism, some kind of xenocentric farce of caring about one's country as the superior and heroic one among others, and he will view enemies as lesser groups, cannon fodder, or at the very least the Other, which must be subjugated in order to preserve his country's mastership. Should Horace become a creator of cultural artifacts - let us say that he becomes a writer who crafts scathing political commentaries - then he will inadvertently (or purposefully) continue the cycle of ISAs. What he writes will be digested by others who will critically analyze it, finding parts which support the ruling ideology and those which question it. Its execution will yield some change in the system, should it find enough support: if it questions certain kinds of the Ideology of the State and the proletariat believes in it, then the Ideology will morph somewhat to accept this change - while remaining fundamentally the same. When Horace marries and has a child (or does not), he will pass on these very ideologies which he may question (or will have no one to pass them to, losing his legacy). Thus, a State can easily and nearly effortlessly control its people.

But what of those few who dissent enough to constitute massive changes in the system which jeopardize the integrity of the State Ideology? Foucault explains in the theory of power struggles how the State plans for this contingency.

In a system, such as Law, Psychology, or any other system, there is a distinct in-group of those who follow the ideology, a power-group of those who create the ideology, and an out-group of those who dissent against the ideology. The power-group is comprised of knowledgeable experts (read 'PhD's) in the field; their expertise in unquestionable by those outside the group of knowledgeable experts.
Let us use the example of Law. One who is in alignment with the Law is considered lawful, and never comes into question - they follow the laws to the letter. Those who are out of alignment with the Law are labeled criminal - they do not follow the laws. Lawmakers must complete a rigorous training in education - an ISA which replicates the State's Ideology - in order to make changes in Law. If anyone who is criminal tries to change a law, the idea is dismissed with little to no thought given; obviously, a lawless criminal such as that would only want to change the laws in order to allow him to continue his unlawful ways with no repercussions. One who is lawful would never need to question the system, as they are not outside of it; one who is unlawful cannot change it because they are dismissed from the discussion. A criminal cannot become an expert in the field, and even if they manage to do so, hegemony will annihilate any chance of changing anything.
Another example is in Psychology: if a person is insane, they don't follow the ideology of 'sanity' as set forth by State-Trained Psychologists. They can never change this system.

We look now to Simone de Beauvoir, a writer who essayed on the woman as 'Other' in the dance between Man and Woman. In Foucault's essay, those on the outside of the power struggle, the 'criminal' or 'insane' become the necessary 'Other;' they take on a peripheral, secondary role in the culture. According to de Beauvoir, the Other cannot adequately explain their situation in the world because culture is written and understood in the language of the Primary - the male, the lawful, the sane. Beauvoir, as a feminist-existentialist, believes that essence does not precede existence - that there is no ultimate 'reality' which confines a being to a single existence, that we as humans create our essence via our existence - posits that woman becomes the Other - not because she chooses to do so, but because man, patriarchal society, and patriarchal language, forces her to do so. She must lose herself in a sea of words which she cannot use to properly explain her situation because as men, the creators of the language could not fathom the feminine experience; that which they cannot fathom, they mythologize, label as the other, and subjugate, forcing it to assimilate or be destroyed.

Following this long but necessary digression, we can return to post-structuralist linguistics and the problem of self-presence. As has been demonstrated across varying platforms - sociopolitical theory, cultural behavioral theory, feminist theory, literary and linguistic theory, and, yes, even scientific theory - a motif of subjective meaning can be cleanly delineated. In all systems which seek truth or absolute meaning, there resides a difficulty of differance (deliberate misspelling of the French word difference, chosen because it sounds the same but is written differently), or the constant deferral of meaning to other sources outside of a single entity, with meaning created by the differences between every single entity and every other entity in all of existence. For example, what is 'bread?' What in the word 'bread,' the mixture of symbols which for us native speakers of English equal a 'word,' yields the idea of 'bread?' Could we not call bread 'forf?' Is there a quality in 'bread' which requires it to be called 'bread' - a necessary breadiness? If so, why does no other society see it? Why are there so many words for 'bread' if it is absolutely bread-like and must therefore be called bread? I think you can see where this is going. We define 'bread' because it's nothing like 'soup,' somewhat like 'muffin,' comes from but is not 'dough,' feeds 'people. . .'. The list is utterly infinite, to the exhaustion of all words, ad infinitum.

Now, how in the hell does this relate back to God, holy wars, and why any religious argument boils down to a pissing match between imaginary best friends?

Western rationale has these stupid things called 'Transcendental Signifieds.' Supposedly, a trans. signified has self-presence: that is, the word which describes the concept is a name for the concept, not a word arbitrarily related to it. We can point to the trans. sig. and say 'this has the quality of ____. It must be ____, and can be nothing else. We can define it by its existence - its essence precedes its existence, and its being is self-evident,' or so Western Rationale believes. We have a few of these words in our rationale, which might look familiar:
Fact
Truth
Reality
Actuality
Knowledge
God.
Seems interesting that our interjection in sentences when we want to remove all doubt uses these: in truth, in reality, in all actuality, according to fact. . . . The Transcendental Signified is created to stop the constant deferral of meaning to the differences between all infinity. It offers a bracketing system by which we may begin to see concepts as absolute, rather than relative. Simply put, it's horsepuckey. Everything is relative - there can be no absolute, and there can be no Transcendental Signified. A Transcendental Signified (by virtue of being 'transcendental') would exist outside of the system in which it is utilized to stop differance. It cannot be influenced by the relationships between signifiers because it is self-present - thus, it must exist on a higher plane.
The problem with this assumption about the existence of such a Trans. Sig. is that it defies linguistic structure and logic. It flies in the face of the very thing it tries to create: Absolute Truth! Reality, Truth, Knowledge, Fact, Actuality, and God are fluctuating, evolving, mutable signifiers, just like bread, cat, or house. If they were transcendental - truly capable of bridging the gap between signifier and signified, marrying logos and sign, then the world would have but one definition, one word, one concept of all these things, and would be united by them. The fact that there is much discussion and disagreement about a single one of these (god), proves that they cannot exist, and that all things are relative.

To come full-circle after a long rant: religious debates always equal 'my-imaginary-friend-is-better-than-yours-because-my-book-says-so' vs. 'your-book-isn't-real-my-imaginary-friend-is-better-because-my-book-says-so.' When a religion cannot even agree on an interpretation of its holy scripture WITHIN THE RELIGION, then how can it expect to provide a solid argument against any other religion based off of a DIFFERENT book? It is akin to me saying that no matter what anyone thinks, the truth is (wink) that 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights* is the best movie of all time simply because I say so and I'm fucking awesome. Suck it.' I could easily discuss the merits of the movie, but think of it this way: it does not matter how good of an argument I make about the qualities of the film, because someone who feels differently than me and has a different backup opinion will not yield, just as I will not.

This is, in a roundabout way, why arguments regarding religion are stupid, pointless, and a waste of breath and metabolic processes. We are better off doing something more constructive and meaningful with our time - like making up new punctuation marks.

*Please note that while RH:MiT is a fantastic film, it is by no stretch of the imagination the best ever.+


















+Fargo is.

Old Postings: A Modernisation Method for the New Millenium, or: Das Ubercomma

We, the educated, somewhat unwashed masses representing the English Language en toto, have decided upon several modernisations regarding popular usage; primarily concerning punctuation.

We, protectors of all that make our bastardised language great, have decided to give the poor comma a break.
+/-

From now on, commas shall be used only in the execution of the appositive phrase, participial phrase, adverbial phrase, and prepositional phrase, as well as the connection of a sentence and a dependent clause.

All other instances which the comma once commanded, such as the list (of the ordered or unordered variety), quotations, and parenthetical phrases, shall hereby be transferred to the semicolon, which shall, from this day forth, be known as the ubercomma.

You may be wondering why we have changed the title of semicolon to ubercomma. Simply, the ubercomma is just a better name. Complexly, the semicolon was deemed a completely improper naming of the ubercomma, as the ubercomma has much less in common with the colon than it does with the comma.

In order to replace the semicolon and to make writing more interesting, we have implemented two new punctuation marks for special occasions.

The first of these changes is the renaming of the colon to reflect its now-lessened responsibilities in light of new discoveries. The colon shall hereafter be referred to as the 'hemicolon,' or literally 'half-colon.' Dialects and speakers may use the terms 'demicolon' or 'semicolon' interchangeably with 'hemicolon,' as these all translate to 'half-colon,' just in two languages. It still makes no sense to me why Latin uses Semi- and Demi-, but is also related to the Greek hemi-, but that is of little consequence, and is a digression.
The hemi/demi/semicolon shall retain all abilities it had in its former (misguided) life as a colon.

The sign of a colon shall be changed, and the name shall signify more power (as it is indeed a whole colon) -- the new symbol of the colon shall be the original vertical array of deux pointes, but with a comma sandwiched in there all nice-like. It shall act as a double rest, a combination of the period and the comma; thus, it shall require five beats, or five to seven seconds, of rest when orated. This shall replace the ellipsis (" . . . "), as that punctuation is far over-used and shall be explained later.

The final punctuation shift for the comma-colon family shall be to the ubercolon, comprised of two colons placed side-by-side. This most uber of punctuation marks shall hold a special place in our hearts, replacing the ellipsis as a mark which denotes excessively long, dramatic pauses, filled with tension and awkward silences. An encountered ubercolon in oration REQUIRES no less than twelve beats of rest, translating to between twelve and thirty seconds of utter silence, which, if not observed by all present, may be punishable by up to death.

But, where falls the poor ellipsis, you ask?
It shall take on its required and first usage forevermore: to show that more exists beyond what was quoted. No more will people use upwards of nine periods in rapid succession to mean a long pause. Rejoice!

You may return to your regularly scheduled lives, but remember that implementations of this new standard begins now. Or else.

Next on the chopping block - split infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions, the Oxford(serial) comma, (<<< there he is!) and the impersonal, hanging 'it is (blank)ing.'

Funding Your Desires

The title has very little to do with the post. Isn't that postmodern? A Postmodern Post, if you would.

The Gel-1130's came in the mail about two weeks ago, and I had the distinct pleasure of running a few training runs of varying types in them. The first came on that beautiful Sunday where temperatures skyrocketed to 52 here in Mt. Pleasant, a treat of a run which included:
-No socks (and thus large, weepy blisters)
-Shorts (and no tights!)
-A SWEAT (that's right, I actually was sweating due to weather and exertion instead of just exertion!)
-A free-climb of Finch Field House (and I do mean the Field House exterior, not the rock wall).
+/-

My only gripe about the Gel-1130's comes from the 'no socks' bit of the run. There is an awkwardly-placed strip of upper that pokes through the mesh toebox and rubs directly on the 3rd and 4th toes of the foot, so once a blister forms there, running in the shoes is out of the question for a bit. Luckily I have a pair of trail shoes (Nike) and my old Kanbarras to trot about in, but it's an annoying ultimatum nonetheless.

After actually purchasing a pair of stability shoes, I have to admit that I'm not 100% certain they're the right type of shoe for my gait. I have low arches, which tends to mean Stability or Motion-Control shoes are in order. However, my left foot has the strangest tendency: it supinates! Low arches usually mean overpronation, not supination. It may be a result of bad alignment in the spine (for which I will need to see a chiropractor), but it may also be another reinforcement for why my Kanbarras (a cushioned shoe for efficient runners) worked so well and felt so damn good on my feet. Next up for me will be a chiropractor's appointment, then a new shoe purchase based on the results of that plus a professional gait observation at Runners.

I finished a half last week on Friday, which amounted to two miles over my training goal. I loved it. I probably won't do it this week (after increasing other mileage days), but we'll see how I feel Friday.

No rants for this week. I'm too busy with other crap to rant.

Ok, so that was a lie. I'll rant later. You love it.
For all those redirected from Facebook, welcome, comment, have a blast.

-RKS