Category: Just Shelley

Categories
Just Shelley

Hide the sparkle

I was surprised when I wrote the post You are how you write? that no one seemed to notice the irony in the page. In particular the paragraph:

Of course, once I wrote this, I thought of Jonathon’s previous writing on Linguistic Imperialism, and the impact that political correctness is having on what we say.

This all followed my quoting Stavros and Jonathon’s strongly expressed disdain for the new book by William Hannas, where he states that perhaps there is a correlation between character-based written languages as compared to abstract alphabets and scientific achievement. I went along with calling “fie” on Mr. Hannas because it seemed like the thing to do, politically.

Lots of comments on this topic, but my favorite was Mark’s rather quiet comment :

Should I read Hannas, or is the poor man already in the outer darkness?

Of course, this is where the irony enters — without fully reading the book, we’re all ready to jump on Hannas and his politically incorrect words, directly after chatting about how political correctness is damaging the English language.

Not picking on Stavros, or Jonathon. Well, yes I am. But there’s a point to it.

When I wrote the posting Outside even among the Outsiders, there was no greater opportunity to get to know me, the ‘real’ me than with this weblog posting. After all, I was talking about some of my deepest insecurities, particularly as they relate to my experiences in my field. However, rather than using an abstract example to talk about my feelings of alienation among technical discussion groups, I used an actual group; one in which many of you also participate in — or not. Worse, I brought up that ugly “male/female” thing again, which seems to be one of the most taboo subjects I know of in weblogging.

This “male/female” thing in technology is very real, should be discussed rather than hidden, and is something I’ve had to deal with, personally and painfully, for over 20 years. It’s not only just a facet of my life, it’s one of the bigger ones. I could have picked a more ‘politically correct’ way of discussing it, but I don’t think I could have picked a more honest approach. Whether my perceptions are true or not, no matter how uncomfortable, they were and are very real. Should I have kept silent?

This reminds me of Jonathon’s Alibis and consistent lies, which generated so much discomfort in local reading/writing circles. Here Jonathon was, sharing a very real facet of himself by exposing how he writes, and there is this incredible push back because people are perceiving the lies being told to them rather than seeing this as an abstract concept that really doesn’t touch them.

And isn’t this the exact same push back that occurred with Dorothea’s Academic Ivory Tower take down? D wasn’t talking about some abstract field, she was talking about academia and academics in the midst of, well, academics. Academics who pushed back, with more than a hint of “Are you talking about me?”

Are you talking about me?

Frank Paynter (that’s PayntEr), talked strongly about his views on postmodernism recently, which triggered some push back from AKMA. Frank pulled the post, which AKMA regreted because, as he wrote:

Frank pulled his post on this topic, which is a shame. I’m sorry he felt obliged to; I hope he didn’t think I was fishing for that. The topic of postmodernism evokes strong responses across the board, and if a strong disagreement between Frank and me helps clarify what’s at stake in postmodern thought and the responses it engenders.

Do you know, I think AKMA’s got it.

Passionately, eloquently, hurtfully, angrily, scathingly, regretfully, we will break the boundaries of political correctness with each other. Sometimes this will be done deliberately and there will be consequences. There should be. However, most of the time these violations of political correctness are really nothing more than an exposure of yet another facet of ourselves, one that people may not like.

At times we’re going to say things that are going to have our readers, our friends, say, “Are you talking about me?” And the answer could be, you know, I just might be — should I stop? I can turn myself around, hide that facet. After all, I don’t want to hurt or offend people or make them uncomfortable. I don’t want to push people away.

As for the Outsider posting, I apologize to Liz for putting her, unfairly, on the spot. And I apologize to Marius for lumping him in with “stereotypical males”, and appreciate his honest response about this. The same apology extends to other men who felt unfairly classified with my writing. Or the women who felt I unfairly classified them.

And the “male/female” thing? Well, we’ll just turn me about a bit and hide that facet of me. Of course, there’s always the risk that if I turn around enough, there won’t be much left of me to show someday. But then, that’s a bit of okay, too. No sharp edges to get caught on.

The smartest weblogger I know is Happy Tutor. He holds up a mask and says, “Love the mask. Hate the mask.”

Archived with comments at Wayback Machine

Categories
Just Shelley

Driving in circles

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Actually, it felt rather good to write that last posting, though I know I’ll piss people off. Probably people I care about. But then I ask myself, why do I care about them if my being honest would piss them off?

I went to the Red Cross orientation earlier today, following directions given at Mapquest. I took Hayden to 64 to South Lieberman. And I drove and drove and drove. Just when I decided I must have gone the wrong way, I realized I recognized where I was at — I had come full circle, home.

It’s North Lieberman. North. North.

However, I got a chance to see some huge mansions, and I also got my first chance to flip the bird to a driver today. I followed a large truck in the right hand lane when all of a sudden I noticed it was a turn only lane. I flipped on my light to get over and looked for an opening. The guy behind me LEANED into his horn, without a break.

So I flipped him the bird.

There goes my driver good conduct metal. Plunk, hear that sucker being dropped into the trash.

Yes. That felt good, too. And I wish I could blame this act, and the last posting on Evil Twin — but they were both all me. All mine.

Categories
Just Shelley

You are how you write

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I am in the midst of semantics, poetry, and RDF but I did want to take a moment to add my own comment on a new linguistic nosh currently being nibbled in the neighborhood. The nosh in question is a new book by William Hannas titled “The Writing on the Wall: How Asian Orthography Curbs Creativity”, referenced in a NY Times article.

According to Language Hat, the first to reference it, the author of the book, …claims that Asian science has suffered because the main Asian languages are written in “character-based rather than alphabetic” systems. According to the Times:

Mr. Hannas’s logic goes like this: because East Asian writing systems lack the abstract features of alphabets, they hamper the kind of analytical and abstract thought necessary for scientific creativity.

Stavros, currently living in South Korea and studying linguistics, reacted in a manner both swift and sure:

puk kyu

Roughly translated: Mr. William Hannas, with all due respect to your abilities and experience, but I would like to suggest that you stuff your head up your bum. Idiomatically: Fuck you.

Jonathon has also weighed in on this topic, specifically character association with sound, with:

In other words, as far as Japanese is concerned, the assertion that the language is based on characters corresponding to a syllable of sound is utter nonsense. Unless you’re referring to five year olds—but then there aren’t too many five year olds of any nationality winning Nobel prizes.

But he also added:

[image missing]

Roughly translated: With all due respect Mr. Hannas, but I beg leave to dispute your assertions and suggest that you take this banana and insert it into your rectum. Idiomatically: Fuck you.

I don’t have the expertise these webloggers have to contribute much to these excellent and appreciated discussions on linguistics, but even I, as someone with little exposure to this field, have a difficult time understanding why a people’s use of characters rather than an alphabet for writing would interfere with their scientific achievements. All I know is how much I appreciate the beauty of the characters, but I imagine that makes me provincial in the eyes of a learned man such as Mr. Hannas.

So I’ll add my own contribution to the response:

pHUcK j00

Roughly and idiomatically translated: What they said. (Thanks to Aquarionics for linguistic help.)

Of course, once I wrote this, I thought of Jonathon’s previous writing on Linguistic Imperialism and the impact that political correctness is having on what we say.

Well, back to the poetry and the RDF and the next essay, which I’ll release later tonight but must take my afternoon walk. In the meantime, while trying to look something up related to this topic, indirectly, I found a website that might be of interest: Omniglot.

Archived with comments at the Wayback Machine

Categories
Just Shelley

Smile

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I get excited at the thought of school and then the cold hard reality of what school means sets in: sitting in small seats in stuffy rooms, taking tests, writing papers, financial paperwork, and the other assorted sundry less positive aspects of academia. Such as grades. Especially grades.

Of course, this must be balanced against interesting discussions on fascinating topics with bright people, professors who inspire and challenge, and the encouragement, nay expectation, to explore the boundaries of one’s capability.

However, not all schools are the same, and if I were living in the Pacific Northwest again, there would be no difficulty in knowing where I would go to school — Evergreen State College. This college was recently listed among the 100 hidden college gems by Jay Mathews at the Washington Post, who wrote:

 

In keeping with the individualistic traditions of the Pacific Northwest, the 4,000 undergraduates are required to create their own course of study on this lovely campus. Dorothy Hay, a counselor at Liberty High School in Issaquah, near Seattle, said Evergreen State is famous for its refusal to give standard grade.

Years ago when I finished my first two years at the community college, I applied to and was accepted at Central Washington University, the University of Washington, and Evergreen. CWU was close to family, UW was big and had prestige, and then there was Evergreen — Washington’s experimental college.

With Evergreen, rather than sign up for courses, you sign up for a program. The programs for an undergraduate degree associated with writing might include ones as diverse as “Baseball: More than a Game” and “Image Conscious: The Emergence of Self in Early Modern Europe from Shakespeare to the Enlightenment”. For instance, after taking a simple online survey, (try it for yourself), I was presented with several possible programs that most likely would be of interest to me, including:

 

Labyrinths
The Folk: Power of an Image
Nature, Nurture, Nonsense
Our Place in Nature
Perception
Recognition: The Politics of Human Exchange
Light

To give you an idea of what a program is like, the description for Light is:

 

This program is a two-quarter interdisciplinary study of light. We will explore light in art, art history, science and mythology. All students will work in the art studio and study how artists have thought about and expressed light in their work. They will also explore the interaction of light with matter in the classroom as well as in the laboratory, and explore the physiology of light in the human body. This integrated program is designed for students who are willing to explore both art and science.

Our weekly schedule will include studio and science labs, specific skill workshops, lectures and seminars.

During winter, we will focus on skill building in art and lab science and on library research methods. During spring, each student will have the opportunity to design an interdisciplinary individual or group project exploring a topic related to the theme of light.

A typical week for a student will consist equally between traditional lecture, hands on lab experience, group efforts, individual research and effort, and off-campus work at other colleges and businesses or out in the field. Classes are just as likely to be held in the forest or a coffee shop, as they are within a regular, traditional classroom.

Instead of following a preset academic plan, you must work with counselors to create your own. Students are expected to take responsibility in developing their course of study, and to actively participate in all of their programs. No passive sitting in the back of the class. No once a week meeting with a disinterested counselor where you show a bit of work.

Rather than a grade system, you’re evaluated according to the standards established at the beginning of the program, and this evaluation could come from members of the community as much as teachers and fellow students. There is no ‘grading on the curve’, and no advantage to the quick reader at Evergreen. If anything, you’re judged against your own expectations and efforts.

Of course, years ago, I was heady from obtaining High Honors in my two years at the community college and the thought of attending a university without a system that awarded academic excellence gave me pause. I wanted my Dean’s List. I wanted my magna cum laude. I liked the idea of competing with my other classmates for that thin line at the end of the bell curve. I was shallow. I was typical.

Still, I visited the campus before making my decision. I was married at the time, and since my husband had a job in a library in Yakima, the plan was that I would live in a dorm while attending college, coming home on weekends and holidays. Based on this, the school assigned me a student as a guide to dorm living when I came for my walk through.

The guide was a nice young woman who was serenely friendly, helpful, and informative. The afternoon in her company was very pleasant except for one thing: she had this Mona Lisa smile planted on her face the entire time she showed me around. It didn’t waver, for a moment; not to full toothy smile, or to no smile at all.

The campus did allow some caged pets such as fish, reptiles, and birds. I asked her if this would include my snake*. Oh yes, she said. Snakes were allowed.

“It’s a rather large snake”, I said.

Not a problem, as long as I didn’t let it loose in the rest of the dorm, I could have a snake as big as I wanted.

“Really? I mean my snake is a boa constrictor, and stretches at least six feet long”, I mentioned, my eyes glued to her face, waiting and watching for the least break in her composure.

Sure. As long as its cage could fit into my room, the school didn’t care.

“I have to feed it weekly.”

Smile.

“It only eats live food.”

Smile.

“I feed it small bunny rabbits and large rats.”

Smile.

Ultimately I retired, defeated. In the end I’m not sure if it was the lack of a traditional academic environment, or that guide’s smile that made me decide to attend CWU instead of Evergreen.

*In the interest of open disclosure, I did not have a snake. However, I once had an iguana named Horatio (after the Horatio Hornblower series), and a chameleon named Godzilla.

Categories
Writing

Or I could study linguistics

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

What better way to get to the root of humanity’s global unconsciousness than studying linguistics. Combine this with humanity’s earliest attempts at communication and one can find the true root of male and female interaction, as explored in Cave Linguistica by David Salo: “Og like Nala”, “Me deer”, “Tiger eat Og deer, me smash”, and “Nala want eat deer Og kill?”.

This pivotal work has now been published in audio book format by Aquarionics, in a style strongly reminiscent of Alistair Cooke, somewhat mixed in with Crocodile Hunter.

May we hope to see further delightful collaborations of this nature in the future.