Three years is plenty for any blog. Especially one started as a college freshman, with entires trailing off, and with a year's hiatus at the end.
This is what it was, and I'm happy with that.
But any posts from here on out will be done here. (And the one directly below will be moved over yonder as soon as I have a spare minute to do some revisionist historicizing...)
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
Caesar and Co.
Has anyone ever tried to conquer the world just to see if they could DO it? Not for any grand idealistic reasons, or for the money, or for security...but just because it was the best challenge around?
People climb mountains because they're there; others compete at sports to challenge themselves. I can imagine entrepreneurs starting businesses for challenge and interest of the attempt. Shucks, folks have even conned everyone in sight for the heck of it. Do people do it in politics, too?
The founders talked about channeling ambition. Is this part of what they meant?
For the record, my strategy and ambition isn't quite up to the challenge of conquering the world, however interesting said conquering might be. Should I embark down the path of territorial politics, I've decided I'd better stick with a VERY tiny country. Like Monaco, or some tiny island in the Pacific. Or maybe the future settlement on Mars. Heading a settlement on another planet might technically count as conquering a world, right? :)
People climb mountains because they're there; others compete at sports to challenge themselves. I can imagine entrepreneurs starting businesses for challenge and interest of the attempt. Shucks, folks have even conned everyone in sight for the heck of it. Do people do it in politics, too?
The founders talked about channeling ambition. Is this part of what they meant?
For the record, my strategy and ambition isn't quite up to the challenge of conquering the world, however interesting said conquering might be. Should I embark down the path of territorial politics, I've decided I'd better stick with a VERY tiny country. Like Monaco, or some tiny island in the Pacific. Or maybe the future settlement on Mars. Heading a settlement on another planet might technically count as conquering a world, right? :)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
History of Opera!
The beginnings of opera were crazy. A bunch of younger guys getting together -- composers, rich dilettantes, librettists, patrons, etc -- and deciding they were going to revolutionize music. And make performances as effective upon the soul and emotions as they believed the ancient Greeks had been able to do.
Then doing it.
Going off of possibly-wrong interpretations of fragmentary ancient documents concerning Greek plays, they got rid of polyphony, and started making large-scale productions involving instruments, clear speech-singing, and dance.
The first three operas were all the SAME STORY. (And often imitated one another's themes and motifs). They stumbled around for a bit, trying to get the balance of everything right, and the first ones are hardly ever performed, except as curiosities. But things finally started hitting a stride with Monteverdi's version of Euridiche, which is still performed today.
Somewhere in the mix of the three Euridiches, Jacopo Perri experimented with an opera that involved merpeople and dolphins -- which Medicis praised to the skies, and called it an "extraordinary spectacle, involving all the senses!"
And then there was Monteverdi...a master-composer famous for his madrigals, who continued to write in the old style even as he became famous as well for his work in the new style. And basically told his critics on both sides to stick it -- he was going to write whatever he darn well pleased. And he was GOOD, and could get away with it.
It would make great story, and I'd love to be able to find some way to tell it in a humorous, fiction-ish way someday. :) Or at least live to see Guy Gavriel Kay latch upon the idea, and do one of his brilliant historical-fantasy interpretations on the theme.
Then doing it.
Going off of possibly-wrong interpretations of fragmentary ancient documents concerning Greek plays, they got rid of polyphony, and started making large-scale productions involving instruments, clear speech-singing, and dance.
The first three operas were all the SAME STORY. (And often imitated one another's themes and motifs). They stumbled around for a bit, trying to get the balance of everything right, and the first ones are hardly ever performed, except as curiosities. But things finally started hitting a stride with Monteverdi's version of Euridiche, which is still performed today.
Somewhere in the mix of the three Euridiches, Jacopo Perri experimented with an opera that involved merpeople and dolphins -- which Medicis praised to the skies, and called it an "extraordinary spectacle, involving all the senses!"
And then there was Monteverdi...a master-composer famous for his madrigals, who continued to write in the old style even as he became famous as well for his work in the new style. And basically told his critics on both sides to stick it -- he was going to write whatever he darn well pleased. And he was GOOD, and could get away with it.
It would make great story, and I'd love to be able to find some way to tell it in a humorous, fiction-ish way someday. :) Or at least live to see Guy Gavriel Kay latch upon the idea, and do one of his brilliant historical-fantasy interpretations on the theme.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Ah, Senior Semester 1
It was crazy, it was different, it was hell, it was a mountain, it turned itself inside out 3+ times, it was my best semester yet.
"When you've got enough mistakes behind you, and enough life ahead of and on top of you, you don't have time to worry about what was and what will be." -- Laura
"When you've got enough mistakes behind you, and enough life ahead of and on top of you, you don't have time to worry about what was and what will be." -- Laura
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Margaret Fuller and the Liberal Arts
Once upon a time back in the day, I asked my mom why it was OK for me -- or any woman -- to go to college. This, you must understand, was a very serious question -- we were close friends with a family who didn't believe in sending their girls to college, and there is a whole Christian homeschool sub-subculture out there that agrees with them. (There is also a more mild sub-subculture that thinks college is OK as long as the girl is still living at home, and an even more liberal variant that thinks it's OK as long as the college is very near by).
I rather wanted to go to college, wanted to go to one that would probably end up being a good distance from home, and desperately hoped there was some solid Christian, biblical reasons for doing so.
I asked several people the question, "why is it OK for women to go to college?" And received in every instance one of the following answers:
I wasn't entirely convinced, but for better or for worse, I bought the arguments, and went to college.
Where, in my junior year, I took Artes Liberales -- a study of how different historical periods have defined a "liberal arts education," and a discussion of what a "liberal arts education" should consist of and aim towards.
One of the main themes of the class was the distinction between a liberal arts education as a "means" and an education as an "end in itself." A basic conclusion of the class was that, yes, a liberal education is useful for many, many things. But that shouldn't be the main reason one pursues that education. The main reason to pursue it is that human beings were created by God with an intellect that can apprehend reality, and a desire use that intellect to understand reality. Developing these faculties is a part of fulfilling what God designed us to be -- part of fulfilling our telos as human beings. Though the hows and whys are subject matter for another post, I ultimately came to agree with this position (at least so long as it always includes the words "part of" when discussing telos and fulfilling).
Jumping further ahead: This semester, we had to read a portion of Margaret Fuller's Woman in the Nineteenth Century for American Intellectual History. And I was rather surprised -- and a bit delighted -- to find in her writing echoes of Dr. Whalen's argument for a liberal arts education. Moreover, she applied them specifically to the question of why women should pursue higher education -- a question I still had not managed to resolve in my own mind:
It's unfortunately a rather convoluted quote -- Fuller wasn't known for her scintillating prose. Rephrased a bit better: "A woman's intellect is no more to be cultivated to make her a more valuable companion to man than is her sense of hearing. Both are to be cultivated primarily because the Power who gave that power desires His gift to be brought to perfection."
And this is now the answer I'd give if someone asked me why women should be able to attend college (especially a liberal arts college). It's not, at root, for the end of "better helping one's husband" or even "making a better home" -- it's because God created us as beings with the capacity and desire to understand reality, and that capacity ought to be developed, both for its own sake and to prepare us for ANY role we undertake later in life. I can see the value of the other arguments people offered me; practical considerations about specific later roles in life do have a place. Indeed, most men are told to go to college for similarly utilitarian reasons. (E.g. -- "You will need to support a family later on." "You will be a more competent intellectual and spiritual leader of your household with an education.")
But, at root? I'm with the strange bedfellows of Dr. Whalen and Margaret Fuller.
I rather wanted to go to college, wanted to go to one that would probably end up being a good distance from home, and desperately hoped there was some solid Christian, biblical reasons for doing so.
I asked several people the question, "why is it OK for women to go to college?" And received in every instance one of the following answers:
- "A woman is supposed to be a helper to her husband. And one can be a better helper by having a higher level of education, closer matching to the husband's" (This was my mom's answer, and the one I took the most seriously at the time)
- "What if the husband dies? A woman needs some practical means of supporting herself and her family if worse comes to worse."
- "One is better prepared to make and enrich a home if one has an education. People who try to force a dichotomy between "learning to be a homemaker" and "pursuing an education" are wrong."
I wasn't entirely convinced, but for better or for worse, I bought the arguments, and went to college.
Where, in my junior year, I took Artes Liberales -- a study of how different historical periods have defined a "liberal arts education," and a discussion of what a "liberal arts education" should consist of and aim towards.
One of the main themes of the class was the distinction between a liberal arts education as a "means" and an education as an "end in itself." A basic conclusion of the class was that, yes, a liberal education is useful for many, many things. But that shouldn't be the main reason one pursues that education. The main reason to pursue it is that human beings were created by God with an intellect that can apprehend reality, and a desire use that intellect to understand reality. Developing these faculties is a part of fulfilling what God designed us to be -- part of fulfilling our telos as human beings. Though the hows and whys are subject matter for another post, I ultimately came to agree with this position (at least so long as it always includes the words "part of" when discussing telos and fulfilling).
Jumping further ahead: This semester, we had to read a portion of Margaret Fuller's Woman in the Nineteenth Century for American Intellectual History. And I was rather surprised -- and a bit delighted -- to find in her writing echoes of Dr. Whalen's argument for a liberal arts education. Moreover, she applied them specifically to the question of why women should pursue higher education -- a question I still had not managed to resolve in my own mind:
So much is said of women being better educated that they may be better companions and mothers of men! They should be fit for such companionship, and we have mentioned with satisfaction instances where it has been established. Earth knows no fairer, holier relation than that of a mother. But a being of infinite scope must not be treated with an exclusive view to any one relation. Give the soul free course, let the organization be freely developed, and the being will be fit for any and every relation to which it may be called. The intellect, no more than the sense of hearing, is to be cultivated merely that Woman may be a more valuable companion to Man, but because the Power who gave a power, by its mere existence signifies that it must be brought out toward perfection.
It's unfortunately a rather convoluted quote -- Fuller wasn't known for her scintillating prose. Rephrased a bit better: "A woman's intellect is no more to be cultivated to make her a more valuable companion to man than is her sense of hearing. Both are to be cultivated primarily because the Power who gave that power desires His gift to be brought to perfection."
And this is now the answer I'd give if someone asked me why women should be able to attend college (especially a liberal arts college). It's not, at root, for the end of "better helping one's husband" or even "making a better home" -- it's because God created us as beings with the capacity and desire to understand reality, and that capacity ought to be developed, both for its own sake and to prepare us for ANY role we undertake later in life. I can see the value of the other arguments people offered me; practical considerations about specific later roles in life do have a place. Indeed, most men are told to go to college for similarly utilitarian reasons. (E.g. -- "You will need to support a family later on." "You will be a more competent intellectual and spiritual leader of your household with an education.")
But, at root? I'm with the strange bedfellows of Dr. Whalen and Margaret Fuller.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Blog Rating
So...due to the rather violent nature of my last post, parents are strongly cautioned:
This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:
* dead (7x)
* kill (3x)
* crack (2x)
* death (1x)
This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:
* dead (7x)
* kill (3x)
* crack (2x)
* death (1x)
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Zombies, Ants, and War
Yes, this is my killer week of exams, papers, practices, guest lectures, and classes. So what do I do? Hahaha -- I decide to write a blog post. The first one of the semester. Oh, lovely time management, where hast thou flown?
But, yes. I want to rant about ants. I hate them. Especially the mutant-exoskeleton-zombie variety that we have here at The Strand. Normal tiny black or red squishy ants have nothing on these fellows. Our house's ants are giant, and black, and come back from the dead, and have NO squishy parts whatsoever, and enter the inside of our house by means of a crack in the paneling near the door of my closet.
We've deduced that they have a nest either under our house or in the walls. Maybe both. I wouldn't put it past them.
Normally they confine themselves to their nest, and to my closet floor. Every other day a lone adventurous soul trails his way across my carpet, and I promptly squish him (this is harder than it sounds). But most of the time I ignore them, and they ignore me; I seal and box the contents of my closet, and they hide in the walls and under the closet carpet, and we maintain toward one another a relative truce. But whenever I decide to do laundry, and clear out all the boxes from the closet in the process...aha, then all bets are off. They run like mad around the closet and boxes and floor and clothes, and I grab my roll of paper towels and squanch them one by one. (And, yes, "squanch" is the correct technical term. "Squishing" is too wimpy a description of the necessary killing action. Squashing+ quenching is more accurate).
Also a field of confrontation: the mail. Sneaky fellows -- if a box or package left by the mailman has any sort of rip or gap of any sort, they invade by the score. I opened one of my book orders from Amazon, and THIRTY of them started crawling out over my hands and bedspread. So I screamed and ran back outside with the package, and stomped as many of them as I could. Half of them looked dead. But looking dead is no guarantee.
Because you can't kill them. You think you've ground them down, and sqanched them into a pulpy oblivion under your foot or inbetween the folds of the paper towel. But you haven't. Unless you literally rip them in half in the process, they will twitch and buckle for a bit, then gingerly unfold themselves, and scuttle away. Sometimes you have to re-catch them three times before they're safely dead.
I've declared a jihad against them. I keep a kill tally above my door. I've murdered nearly twenty the the past three days.
And I've finally acquired TERRO.
But I haven't used it yet. It seems to damnedly unsportsmanlike. We've been through a lot together this past month, and it seems like springing modern chemical weaponry on a band of Hoplite warriors. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth. (Metaphorically, that is. Though I suppose it tastes pretty bad physically, too).
Actually, I probably would have used it anyway by now. In a far less romantic consideration, I just don't envy myself a giant, crusty pile of dead ants spilling out of my closet.
But Lydia says I should just get over that mental aversion and go for it. Because they breed a lot faster than I can kill them one by one, and sooner or later they'll find the kitchen and the food... :-/
But, yes. I want to rant about ants. I hate them. Especially the mutant-exoskeleton-zombie variety that we have here at The Strand. Normal tiny black or red squishy ants have nothing on these fellows. Our house's ants are giant, and black, and come back from the dead, and have NO squishy parts whatsoever, and enter the inside of our house by means of a crack in the paneling near the door of my closet.
We've deduced that they have a nest either under our house or in the walls. Maybe both. I wouldn't put it past them.
Normally they confine themselves to their nest, and to my closet floor. Every other day a lone adventurous soul trails his way across my carpet, and I promptly squish him (this is harder than it sounds). But most of the time I ignore them, and they ignore me; I seal and box the contents of my closet, and they hide in the walls and under the closet carpet, and we maintain toward one another a relative truce. But whenever I decide to do laundry, and clear out all the boxes from the closet in the process...aha, then all bets are off. They run like mad around the closet and boxes and floor and clothes, and I grab my roll of paper towels and squanch them one by one. (And, yes, "squanch" is the correct technical term. "Squishing" is too wimpy a description of the necessary killing action. Squashing+ quenching is more accurate).
Also a field of confrontation: the mail. Sneaky fellows -- if a box or package left by the mailman has any sort of rip or gap of any sort, they invade by the score. I opened one of my book orders from Amazon, and THIRTY of them started crawling out over my hands and bedspread. So I screamed and ran back outside with the package, and stomped as many of them as I could. Half of them looked dead. But looking dead is no guarantee.
Because you can't kill them. You think you've ground them down, and sqanched them into a pulpy oblivion under your foot or inbetween the folds of the paper towel. But you haven't. Unless you literally rip them in half in the process, they will twitch and buckle for a bit, then gingerly unfold themselves, and scuttle away. Sometimes you have to re-catch them three times before they're safely dead.
I've declared a jihad against them. I keep a kill tally above my door. I've murdered nearly twenty the the past three days.
And I've finally acquired TERRO.
But I haven't used it yet. It seems to damnedly unsportsmanlike. We've been through a lot together this past month, and it seems like springing modern chemical weaponry on a band of Hoplite warriors. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth. (Metaphorically, that is. Though I suppose it tastes pretty bad physically, too).
Actually, I probably would have used it anyway by now. In a far less romantic consideration, I just don't envy myself a giant, crusty pile of dead ants spilling out of my closet.
But Lydia says I should just get over that mental aversion and go for it. Because they breed a lot faster than I can kill them one by one, and sooner or later they'll find the kitchen and the food... :-/
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
I am busy
I am back at Hillsdale, and I am very busy.
- music major
- history major
- accompaniment
- piano-violin-cello trio
- teaching piano lessons
- piano juries
- living off campus
- cooking
- grocery shopping
- keeping the house in order
- senior thesis
- joining SAI
- killing ants
Do I have time to put any stray thoughts into a publishable semblace of order? Um...no. Posts will be sporadic. Very.
- music major
- history major
- accompaniment
- piano-violin-cello trio
- teaching piano lessons
- piano juries
- living off campus
- cooking
- grocery shopping
- keeping the house in order
- senior thesis
- joining SAI
- killing ants
Do I have time to put any stray thoughts into a publishable semblace of order? Um...no. Posts will be sporadic. Very.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)