I was looking at a book by Harold Bloom the other day (yes, I'll admit it, I was looking because I'm becoming more and more of a book snob) that was called "How to Read and Why", which sounds a little like the type of book a parent would get to convince their kid to pick up something, anything. Which it isn't, I'm assuming, since it is Bloom. (Who, I've never actually read, by the way.) :)
Anyway, this book made me remember a weird thing about myself.. ready?
I don't read because I have some sort of intrinsic love for reading.
Don't get me wrong, I like to read, but I don't read because reading is an end in and of itself. I'll read because I like having read. Because I like knowing different things and being annoying by being able to say things like "Well Huxley thought.. actually, if you look at what he talks about in Black Like Me.. etc."
Actually, for years I read next to nothing. Why? Because most of what I had read up until that point could easily be labelled "junk food" literature - the fast paced page turners that you finish and realize you just wasted two hours of your life. Blegh. It wasn't until I discovered that there could actually be a point to reading that I really started doing so.
It was funny the day my Senior year that I realized that the most intelligent people weren't always, or even usually, the ones who got the highest grades. Rather, they were those who read quite a bit. Alas, such is our education system that I wasted eleven years of school before I figured this out and started picking up some books.
The reason why this is a big deal to me? It's because people always seem to assume that when I tell them how many pages I have left in a book or something along those lines that I don't like the book and I'm not reading it by choice, which is, generally, not true.
I read because I like having read things. I read to be able to know about the World. And because, maybe, every so often, reading gives me more of a chance of being smart enough to use that knowledge to tap into something, anything, more hopeful or useful than merely unconciously existing. Moving beyond Absurdism.
Jan 22, 2009
Jan 5, 2009
The deepest post
"Brevity is the soul of wit."
- Polonius (Hamlet)
(But it's Polonius, so what does he know?!)
My posts are getting more and more outrageously long. So this one is short.
Fin.
- Polonius (Hamlet)
(But it's Polonius, so what does he know?!)
My posts are getting more and more outrageously long. So this one is short.
Fin.
Jan 4, 2009
Kick out the devil's sin; pick up a good book now.
Two thousand eleven pages later where am I?
This is, in fact, a bragging post. Not because I think that this is an "amazing" feat for most.. but one for me.
You see: I told myself that I was going to read at least two thousand pages during the break. Not only did I tell myself this, but I actually did it. Weird, right?
I tend to tell myself I'm going to do lots of things that I end up not really doing.
Here's the thing.. I may have read all of those pages, but unless I try to make some sense of all that I read there's no reason why I should've read them. And so these are a few of the things that I learned over the break; book by book.
The Picture of Dorian Gray: The self is more terrifying than anything than any other subject. The most frightening part of the self: apathy towards the honor of the self and towards the universal golden rule.
Three Cups of Tea: Ok. This book really isn't as "revolutionary" as it is proclaimed by book snobs as being. I was reminded of the fact that not only can there be non-violent forms of intervention, but that non-violent intervention is usually more effective.
Mormon Scientist: I'm not the only one who thinks that evolution is not contrary to Mormon Doctrine (for me - a special emphasis on "Theistic evolution" in opposition to "Intelligent Design" which is really not evolution.. but I'll write something else on that later). Mormons, even prominent ones, can argue opinion with Prophets on such controversial topics as Evolution and not be considered "apostate" as many label Orson Scott Card for having written books that aren't just fluff. :)
Slumming: This is a radical book for me to have liked because it has two of the features that I usually avoid when it comes to selecting a novel: A) It's Young Adult and B) it's written by an LDS author. Perhaps the most interesting thing I learned from this one is that if you write an LDS YA and it has too many "depressing" parts to it no one will buy it (Que the people at the library telling me "That's not uplifting"). 'Twas very hard to find.
Nonviolence: I have yet to find an intensely convincing argument for either side of this debate. The most interesting thing in this book? There is no word for nonviolence in any language. I actually could not tell you the difference between pacifism and nonviolence before I read this though, so it gets some points.
A Short History of Nearly Everything: Bill Bryson likes geology. Blah. Beyond that I learned that Scientists are radicals and if they're right, then they'll most likely get mocked while they're alive and they'll be made into Saints latter on. A lot of the well-known scientists throughout the years have hung out together. The fact that Yellow Stone is one huge volcano took years to figure out. Don't run around Yellow Stone at night even if you are a park ranger. Umm.. dang, you think I'd remember more from this book. Shoot.
Roots: This book is well-researched historical fiction, not nonfiction. Take it out of the 920s. This was the best book on slavery I have read. The history of all places, not just Europe (dang you Europeans! myself included), should be taught as a way of showing the Roots of America for even though we like to pretend that Western thought is "civilized" thought, it generally is further away from being "civilized" than other cultures.. whoops. The book also reminded me of Kite Runner because it was SO popular when it came out among those who "wanted to understand other cultures."
I'm hoping that because most of these books made do the outrageous thing - think of life in different terms than I did before I read them - that I can use them in shaping my opinions, myself, and, of course, as a means of making a point in debate. :)
Read. More. Books.
This is, in fact, a bragging post. Not because I think that this is an "amazing" feat for most.. but one for me.
You see: I told myself that I was going to read at least two thousand pages during the break. Not only did I tell myself this, but I actually did it. Weird, right?
I tend to tell myself I'm going to do lots of things that I end up not really doing.
Here's the thing.. I may have read all of those pages, but unless I try to make some sense of all that I read there's no reason why I should've read them. And so these are a few of the things that I learned over the break; book by book.
The Picture of Dorian Gray: The self is more terrifying than anything than any other subject. The most frightening part of the self: apathy towards the honor of the self and towards the universal golden rule.
Three Cups of Tea: Ok. This book really isn't as "revolutionary" as it is proclaimed by book snobs as being. I was reminded of the fact that not only can there be non-violent forms of intervention, but that non-violent intervention is usually more effective.
Mormon Scientist: I'm not the only one who thinks that evolution is not contrary to Mormon Doctrine (for me - a special emphasis on "Theistic evolution" in opposition to "Intelligent Design" which is really not evolution.. but I'll write something else on that later). Mormons, even prominent ones, can argue opinion with Prophets on such controversial topics as Evolution and not be considered "apostate" as many label Orson Scott Card for having written books that aren't just fluff. :)
Slumming: This is a radical book for me to have liked because it has two of the features that I usually avoid when it comes to selecting a novel: A) It's Young Adult and B) it's written by an LDS author. Perhaps the most interesting thing I learned from this one is that if you write an LDS YA and it has too many "depressing" parts to it no one will buy it (Que the people at the library telling me "That's not uplifting"). 'Twas very hard to find.
Nonviolence: I have yet to find an intensely convincing argument for either side of this debate. The most interesting thing in this book? There is no word for nonviolence in any language. I actually could not tell you the difference between pacifism and nonviolence before I read this though, so it gets some points.
A Short History of Nearly Everything: Bill Bryson likes geology. Blah. Beyond that I learned that Scientists are radicals and if they're right, then they'll most likely get mocked while they're alive and they'll be made into Saints latter on. A lot of the well-known scientists throughout the years have hung out together. The fact that Yellow Stone is one huge volcano took years to figure out. Don't run around Yellow Stone at night even if you are a park ranger. Umm.. dang, you think I'd remember more from this book. Shoot.
Roots: This book is well-researched historical fiction, not nonfiction. Take it out of the 920s. This was the best book on slavery I have read. The history of all places, not just Europe (dang you Europeans! myself included), should be taught as a way of showing the Roots of America for even though we like to pretend that Western thought is "civilized" thought, it generally is further away from being "civilized" than other cultures.. whoops. The book also reminded me of Kite Runner because it was SO popular when it came out among those who "wanted to understand other cultures."
I'm hoping that because most of these books made do the outrageous thing - think of life in different terms than I did before I read them - that I can use them in shaping my opinions, myself, and, of course, as a means of making a point in debate. :)
Read. More. Books.
Dec 11, 2008
Manic-apathetic (and my mumbling)
Something I've noticed in my life is that I'm a little manic sometimes and fairly mellow a lot of the other times and very rarely depressed. It seems like I physically can't hold an emotion for more than a couple of weeks. After a couple of weeks I go back to being content.
Hence, over the summer I came to doubt the idea that happiness should be the ultimate goal of an individual. I don't know how others feel about this, but to me it was weird, at first, to think of happiness not being one's ultimate desire.
The whole concept of happiness not being important came from a very interesting, but a little bit annoying, book called "The Pursuit of Happiness" and, no, it wasn't the same thing as the movie. The author suggested something that had never even crossed my mind.. that maybe it wasn't abnormal for someone to not be happy.
It was kind of a weird and intriguing concept for me.
Now let me get this cleared up before I go on: I'm not saying that it shouldn't be concerning if someone is unhappy. To me there is a difference between being unhappy and not happy. To be unhappy is the opposite of happiness, while to not be happy is just that.. to not feel that sort of ecstatic feeling.
It seems like here in Utah people claim that there are only two states of being: happiness or misery. I've even had someone tell me that if one lives the gospel of Jesus Christ to its fullest measure, that it is impossible for one not to be happy. (Which I sincerely doubt and argued with him about for quite a while.. after all "Jesus Wept".. isn't that significant?)For a while I thought this way as well, but I rarely am in either of those extremes.. usually I just am and I'm fine with that until you bring it up. Then as I concentrate and try to be "happy" I tend to become very unhappy.
Perhaps Hawthorne was right that: "Happiness is as a butterfly which, when pursued, is always beyond our grasp, but which if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon you."
Instead of happiness, I purposed that the goal of the individual should, in fact, be that they take up their "civic duty" and do something worthwhile for the World. This is, by far, the less selfish goal.
The idea itself is one that requires an intrinsic motivation for other people, however, one that is very hard for most people to have (myself included.) The idea purports that, in fact, none of us are doing service for anyone. There is no such thing as service. We are doing what we are supposed to be doing - nothing more.
This comes into major conflict with religious arguments, however. At first when I took the idea up I doubted anyone who made the argument that something was true because it made you feel happy. It actually turned into quite the angry debate.
I went on a long time this way and, yet, somehow I can't get myself to make the argument that happiness holds no validity in determining truth anymore.
And perhaps this is a crazy argument.. but there is something about feeling God that is undeniably happy. It doesn't seem to matter which religion's approach is being made to come to the reality of divinity.. but when one has that sort of mystic experience or the feeling of the spirit in Christianity one cannot deny that truth does bring happiness.
When I said in an earlier post that I've become very unsure about things lately I wasn't kidding.. The degree to which happiness should be the goal of one's life is something about which I simply have to say:
I don't know.
Hence, over the summer I came to doubt the idea that happiness should be the ultimate goal of an individual. I don't know how others feel about this, but to me it was weird, at first, to think of happiness not being one's ultimate desire.
The whole concept of happiness not being important came from a very interesting, but a little bit annoying, book called "The Pursuit of Happiness" and, no, it wasn't the same thing as the movie. The author suggested something that had never even crossed my mind.. that maybe it wasn't abnormal for someone to not be happy.
It was kind of a weird and intriguing concept for me.
Now let me get this cleared up before I go on: I'm not saying that it shouldn't be concerning if someone is unhappy. To me there is a difference between being unhappy and not happy. To be unhappy is the opposite of happiness, while to not be happy is just that.. to not feel that sort of ecstatic feeling.
It seems like here in Utah people claim that there are only two states of being: happiness or misery. I've even had someone tell me that if one lives the gospel of Jesus Christ to its fullest measure, that it is impossible for one not to be happy. (Which I sincerely doubt and argued with him about for quite a while.. after all "Jesus Wept".. isn't that significant?)For a while I thought this way as well, but I rarely am in either of those extremes.. usually I just am and I'm fine with that until you bring it up. Then as I concentrate and try to be "happy" I tend to become very unhappy.
Perhaps Hawthorne was right that: "Happiness is as a butterfly which, when pursued, is always beyond our grasp, but which if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon you."
Instead of happiness, I purposed that the goal of the individual should, in fact, be that they take up their "civic duty" and do something worthwhile for the World. This is, by far, the less selfish goal.
The idea itself is one that requires an intrinsic motivation for other people, however, one that is very hard for most people to have (myself included.) The idea purports that, in fact, none of us are doing service for anyone. There is no such thing as service. We are doing what we are supposed to be doing - nothing more.
This comes into major conflict with religious arguments, however. At first when I took the idea up I doubted anyone who made the argument that something was true because it made you feel happy. It actually turned into quite the angry debate.
I went on a long time this way and, yet, somehow I can't get myself to make the argument that happiness holds no validity in determining truth anymore.
And perhaps this is a crazy argument.. but there is something about feeling God that is undeniably happy. It doesn't seem to matter which religion's approach is being made to come to the reality of divinity.. but when one has that sort of mystic experience or the feeling of the spirit in Christianity one cannot deny that truth does bring happiness.
When I said in an earlier post that I've become very unsure about things lately I wasn't kidding.. The degree to which happiness should be the goal of one's life is something about which I simply have to say:
I don't know.
Dec 8, 2008
It's not time to make a change
It's funny because I've always been a very opinionated person, but lately I've been feeling a little thrown for a loop on my opinions.
The quote above is from the song "Father and Son" which is set up in the classic argument between traditionality and idealism, thus, father and son.
An idealist is something I've always wanted to be. (We CAN become a peaceful little World! We can end genocide! The attitudes of men and women are essentially the same: its nurture, not nature that makes the difference. etc.)
The funny thing is that now that I've backed off a little I've noticed that maybe it's the idealism that's really hurting the World. Many who like to think of themselves as idealists say things along the lines of: Nothing's really right or wrong, it's all relevant, let's get rid of the classic system of civility - it obviously wasn't working!, Meh. Who's to say that eroticism isn't art?, The World would be better if it were set up in Freud's most wanted manner, etc.
Maybe Cat Stevens' father figure was right: it's not time to make a change. I'm finding myself ever more conforming with Aristotle's realist plan (to look at the institutions of government that already work and improve upon them) than Plato's idealist plan (to destroy the current government and set up a new one essentially ruled by aristocrats.) Aristotle's plan makes sense. Why not improve upon what we already have?
The quote above is from the song "Father and Son" which is set up in the classic argument between traditionality and idealism, thus, father and son.
An idealist is something I've always wanted to be. (We CAN become a peaceful little World! We can end genocide! The attitudes of men and women are essentially the same: its nurture, not nature that makes the difference. etc.)
The funny thing is that now that I've backed off a little I've noticed that maybe it's the idealism that's really hurting the World. Many who like to think of themselves as idealists say things along the lines of: Nothing's really right or wrong, it's all relevant, let's get rid of the classic system of civility - it obviously wasn't working!, Meh. Who's to say that eroticism isn't art?, The World would be better if it were set up in Freud's most wanted manner, etc.
Maybe Cat Stevens' father figure was right: it's not time to make a change. I'm finding myself ever more conforming with Aristotle's realist plan (to look at the institutions of government that already work and improve upon them) than Plato's idealist plan (to destroy the current government and set up a new one essentially ruled by aristocrats.) Aristotle's plan makes sense. Why not improve upon what we already have?
Nov 25, 2008
"Crawling around my brain."
There definitely is something therapeutic about free association.
And that is what I have already found about this blogging thing (which is not to say that I'm telling massive quantities of my thoughts - but enough). It gives me the chance to ramble as I really think that I need sometimes (although sketching somehow is the ultimate form of how I think - no matter how creepy SOME people think my drawings are - when I hear the part of "I wish I was a girl" that says "crawling around my brain" that is exactly how I feel about life.. especially life in art). And I am fully aware that I only have one follower at this moment.. (unless someone is stalking me..) Which doesn't bother me, because somehow even writing to myself is therapeutic.
That being said I would like to point out the glaringly obvious: later, if more people follow my blog, I will offend some of them (Cue that same person making fun of me), and, yet, I still feel as though I want to, and will, state my thoughts and opinions - which, yes, may reach a borderline state on somethings I am sure.
And I will change my opinions a couple of hundred times before I die. So, I guess this is a disclaimer.
"I don't want to be a judge and I don't want to be a jury. I know who I am, Lord knows who I will be." - Paul Simon
I wish I could tell you that I'd take this approach on life - but I won't and can't always do so. Sometimes I really feel as though something is worth pushing over a few people for.
For better or for worse I would ask that I be able to state my ideas.. good, bad, or indifferent without having to apologize every five seconds. Feel free to disagree.. but just realize that I'm human too.
And that is what I have already found about this blogging thing (which is not to say that I'm telling massive quantities of my thoughts - but enough). It gives me the chance to ramble as I really think that I need sometimes (although sketching somehow is the ultimate form of how I think - no matter how creepy SOME people think my drawings are - when I hear the part of "I wish I was a girl" that says "crawling around my brain" that is exactly how I feel about life.. especially life in art). And I am fully aware that I only have one follower at this moment.. (unless someone is stalking me..) Which doesn't bother me, because somehow even writing to myself is therapeutic.
That being said I would like to point out the glaringly obvious: later, if more people follow my blog, I will offend some of them (Cue that same person making fun of me), and, yet, I still feel as though I want to, and will, state my thoughts and opinions - which, yes, may reach a borderline state on somethings I am sure.
And I will change my opinions a couple of hundred times before I die. So, I guess this is a disclaimer.
"I don't want to be a judge and I don't want to be a jury. I know who I am, Lord knows who I will be." - Paul Simon
I wish I could tell you that I'd take this approach on life - but I won't and can't always do so. Sometimes I really feel as though something is worth pushing over a few people for.
For better or for worse I would ask that I be able to state my ideas.. good, bad, or indifferent without having to apologize every five seconds. Feel free to disagree.. but just realize that I'm human too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
