The title is a direct quote from someone at the motley crew at Shawn's bonfire last night. In attendance were artists, actors, musicians, Shawn's roomates from Cairo, econ/political science students, a Harvard student, and a soldier just back from his first tour of duty in Afghanistan. All connected by that oh-so-tenuous thread that is High School.
"Our generation is the generation that's going to change things!" said one of them. There was a drunken debate between two white guys (of course) on libertarianism versus socialism (which seemed to mostly mean privatized medicine to the guy). Lots of talk about the Middle East, and lots of bad Arabic spoken (I countered by talking in Spanish to the guy from Guatemala who was the only other one in conversation group who didn't speak Arabic to some extent). Challenged Clare to define "science", which she struggled with. Would I have done much better? Atheists especially place tremendous value in "Science" (capital 'S') without even understanding what it is. "It gives answers that are true" is not a definition. But I feel even science students who I know might be challenged to really answer the question--there is a whole course on it this year, which sadly conflicts with SD this semester or I might have taken it. Also had a thought last night: while it's a running joke that theatre at St Andrews is all arts students, there are biologists, psychologists, geoscientists, and management students I know who do stuff. My question is, where are the physicists, chemists, and mathematicians (and econ and computer scientists, come to that)? And, of course, the medics...but I'm more interested in the hard/soft science split.
"Our generation is the generation that's going to change things!" I felt so fucking cynical. I'm not sure why Shawn sees me as political, I think it's just that every time someone comes up with a proposition I question it from every practical angle I can think of to see if they've really thought it out. There was a guy in Jordan who annoyed me a little bit because he "tested" people to see if they could really speak the languages they said they could and had the cultural knowledge they claimed to. But I suppose I do the same when people make an ideological statement.
Why *should* it be our generation? Or, assuming that change does happen, wouldn't it be fair to say that *every* generation is *a* generation that changes things? Vietnam, civil rights, the Cold War generally, etc. What makes green issues and US (ex?) hegemony so different or special? Wanting change is great {Onion headline during the Obama campaign: Black Man Asks for Change} but I think there is a danger in overvaluing one's significance, even if that danger is just in coming off as a douche.
So that's a lot of word vomit....Christmas was good, seeing people is good, life is pretty good.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Coming home!
Dec 20th (late) to Jan 12th or whenever I decide I really should start revising (studying). Really looking forward to seeing everyone, including the sun, who I believe is scheduled to be out more than 2 hours every day in California. And Lisa, yes please! Can you come up--can we come down? I have no idea what is going on, but we'll figure something out.
Got Bleakhouse from the library (which I'm excited about) and still haven't gotten past page 50 of the Silmarillion, so I've got flight reading sorted. Dreading it, really am...and I've gotten to the stage where I'm nervous using regular old tickets-what does that say? :)
I also wanted to provide my own commentary on Casnocha's bit in 'The Diatribe Continuith', since I left it as an afterthought and didn't say anything about it myself. It's interesting that the reaction has been so uniformly negative. He is a bit of an idiot, but he has a certain point that gets muddled up in the way he frames his argument. Starting with college is the mistake here, because I don't think he's actually complaining about universities at all, but rather about the schooling leading up to them that means that students come to university and only then have any sort of freedom. People talk about figuring out what they are really interested in in university, and it is the peculiar mixture of rigor, breadth, and specialization that does that. My issue, and I think Casnocha's as well, is that there is no reason that this should not always be going on. Through primary and secondary school you are set, by and large, down a set number of broad paths and then pushed along by a railroad of pre-prepared material. My favorite, and most memorable, moments of my schooling were research projects where I got to pursue my own agenda: sloths, slavery...actually, those are the only two I can think of. Ben's idea of specialization I don't think is a rigid enforcement of sticking to a subject field, but rather a freedom to explore within fields outside of usual boundaries. Of course the context is important, as is a well rounded education, but if at any point in my education I had the opportunity to study Aztec or Viking history, ecosystems and super-species, the psychology of mass action, or the interplay of technology and culture, I would jump at the opportunity. Maybe it's the fault of a UK system, but even here at Uni these are footnotes and footnotes to footnotes. One thing I'm seeing closely studying Greek philosophy/ethics/science this semester is how choosing a single point of view and looking at everything else from that perspective can be really broadening. Casnocha's remedy isn't that universities or schools should allow people to do only what they are interested in and nothing more, it's that deeper explanation and the ability to set questions are powerful tools that we are given no incentive to pursue.
On the issue of setting questions, I have a 'UK perspective'. In the States, I get the sense that professors tend to give quite general topics or encourage students to come up with something original or creative in everything they do as part of that "critical thinking" thing that seems to be so big at the moment. Here there's usually just the opposite, with verbose and specific questions posed so that essays are strictly the answer to a question rather than the exploration of a topic. This makes them a lot more focused and helps me tremendously in cutting my ability to waffle, but I do feel less attached to and enthusiastic about the work. The SD "choose your own topic and do a presentation on it" got me really excited, though I suspect most viewed it as more of a chore, and the idea of a dissertation makes me very happy.
Got Bleakhouse from the library (which I'm excited about) and still haven't gotten past page 50 of the Silmarillion, so I've got flight reading sorted. Dreading it, really am...and I've gotten to the stage where I'm nervous using regular old tickets-what does that say? :)
I also wanted to provide my own commentary on Casnocha's bit in 'The Diatribe Continuith', since I left it as an afterthought and didn't say anything about it myself. It's interesting that the reaction has been so uniformly negative. He is a bit of an idiot, but he has a certain point that gets muddled up in the way he frames his argument. Starting with college is the mistake here, because I don't think he's actually complaining about universities at all, but rather about the schooling leading up to them that means that students come to university and only then have any sort of freedom. People talk about figuring out what they are really interested in in university, and it is the peculiar mixture of rigor, breadth, and specialization that does that. My issue, and I think Casnocha's as well, is that there is no reason that this should not always be going on. Through primary and secondary school you are set, by and large, down a set number of broad paths and then pushed along by a railroad of pre-prepared material. My favorite, and most memorable, moments of my schooling were research projects where I got to pursue my own agenda: sloths, slavery...actually, those are the only two I can think of. Ben's idea of specialization I don't think is a rigid enforcement of sticking to a subject field, but rather a freedom to explore within fields outside of usual boundaries. Of course the context is important, as is a well rounded education, but if at any point in my education I had the opportunity to study Aztec or Viking history, ecosystems and super-species, the psychology of mass action, or the interplay of technology and culture, I would jump at the opportunity. Maybe it's the fault of a UK system, but even here at Uni these are footnotes and footnotes to footnotes. One thing I'm seeing closely studying Greek philosophy/ethics/science this semester is how choosing a single point of view and looking at everything else from that perspective can be really broadening. Casnocha's remedy isn't that universities or schools should allow people to do only what they are interested in and nothing more, it's that deeper explanation and the ability to set questions are powerful tools that we are given no incentive to pursue.
On the issue of setting questions, I have a 'UK perspective'. In the States, I get the sense that professors tend to give quite general topics or encourage students to come up with something original or creative in everything they do as part of that "critical thinking" thing that seems to be so big at the moment. Here there's usually just the opposite, with verbose and specific questions posed so that essays are strictly the answer to a question rather than the exploration of a topic. This makes them a lot more focused and helps me tremendously in cutting my ability to waffle, but I do feel less attached to and enthusiastic about the work. The SD "choose your own topic and do a presentation on it" got me really excited, though I suspect most viewed it as more of a chore, and the idea of a dissertation makes me very happy.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Time to start living again?
Other than my philosophy lectures, I have been a lump for these last few days, sitting in my room eating, sleeping, and playing video games. Mostly sleeping, which is brilliant. But a lot of video games. And a wee bit of reading. Need(ed) a break, a recovery period so I can jump right into Christmas. Dunno if I'm done yet. Went out with Robbie, Jim, and Julie tonight for some quiet drinks, which was nice. Want to see a bunch of people before we break. Want to read a bunch of books. Start having rehearsals again tomorrow night, and tomorrow should have the SD lecture that clarifies what I want to do with my degree.
I'm at that stage now of trying to process what this semester has meant to me, what Christmas will bring, and what I want next semester to be.
I'm at that stage now of trying to process what this semester has meant to me, what Christmas will bring, and what I want next semester to be.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Sunday Psychosis
After our party last night (which was fun and amusing if not newsworthy) woke up 'round noon and have spent the day at/discussing callbacks for Sarah Cane's "4.48 Psychosis", which I'm directing with a 4th year friend after exams during the inter-semester break (which is not the Christmas break...we are seriously never in school). Good stuff, we've got a cast of 7, three of whom were in 1984 but can I help it if my people were brilliant? Jokes, of course. It'll be weird--I've never directed the same people twice before.
One observation: For an actor, "acting" is dangerous--overdoing character and scene to the point where they become phony. For the director, ideas themselves are equally dangerous. Harry, my co-director, I think is very susceptible to them, because he'll see or think of something and immediately say, "Wow! We should have that in the show." Unfortunately, 9/10 of what comes out of rehearsal is, I think, unsuited for the actual show (because it will be different--or because it will be the same but the show will be different) so that even if some things are incredible, you often have to settle for second-best to find stuff that is appropriate to the show. This pops up in set as well; we could have all sorts of stuff, but really, should we? I think I tend to approach shows with the idea of the show first (which can, of course, change) and then go to the text, but Harry is all about the text and his ideas of the theatrical elements are much more nebulous and uncertain. We shall see.
And, there are two black people in the cast, which is more than in the whole of St Andrews/Scotland. Booyah.
One observation: For an actor, "acting" is dangerous--overdoing character and scene to the point where they become phony. For the director, ideas themselves are equally dangerous. Harry, my co-director, I think is very susceptible to them, because he'll see or think of something and immediately say, "Wow! We should have that in the show." Unfortunately, 9/10 of what comes out of rehearsal is, I think, unsuited for the actual show (because it will be different--or because it will be the same but the show will be different) so that even if some things are incredible, you often have to settle for second-best to find stuff that is appropriate to the show. This pops up in set as well; we could have all sorts of stuff, but really, should we? I think I tend to approach shows with the idea of the show first (which can, of course, change) and then go to the text, but Harry is all about the text and his ideas of the theatrical elements are much more nebulous and uncertain. We shall see.
And, there are two black people in the cast, which is more than in the whole of St Andrews/Scotland. Booyah.
Friday, December 12, 2008
The Diatribe Continuith
V. ill today, felt like one of the living dead. Not much of note--handed in assessments for my modules. It surprised me, on reflection, that I rated Philosophy almost perfectly and had major gripes with SD. Not because of the content or even the ramshackle way the course is taught, but rather because they keep pounding us with stupid generalizations (management is good! the environment needs protected! we all need to work together!). But I finally got an e-mail back from the course coordinator so I should meet with her and talk about future options in this next week.
Also met with the Mermaids president to talk show stuff. There is a very funny (probably one-sided) feud going on between the "new blood" and "old blood" in Mermaids. The "new blood" complains the "old blood" only cast "old blood" people, and then proceed to cast only "new blood" in retaliation, perpetuating the cycle and causing there to be no difference between the groups. Meanwhile, I cast all Freshers and 4th/5th years, who don't know/give a shit! Anyways, the prez is "old blood royalty" by the standards of "la revelucion!", but he's really enthusiastic about the online show and I'd like to have him involved both for what he can bring (resources, knowledge of St Andrews' weird and wacky ways) and to bridge the imaginary social gap. We mainly just chatted about stuff we were working on and what the main obstacles might be. What I found most interesting and entertaining was his assurance of support. It went something like, "if you need anything, or if anyone gives you a hard time, let me know." Who is going to give me a hard time? It's theatre, not drug trafficking. It was a very sweet and Mafia-like thing to say, and on reflection I think it showed the faux status of the leadership position, where an offer of help comes in the form of protection from bullies. But honestly, all of school government is a hoax, as is (I suspect) much of "management" and "leadership" in that oh-so-distant "real world". It got me thinking about positions of power and responsibility, and just how firmly we create and maintain their illusion. The illusion itself gets you nothing, but its ability to convince others to go along with you is all-important. Directing and the always-competitive theatre friendships this year have got me thinking a lot about power relationships.
But enough about that. Time to go pay my respects at a party and then head off for bed. I'll leave you with some good education bashing from Ben Casnocha's blog today that I found really accurate:
"Here's today's question: Why do so many young people, upon graduating college, have such a hard time finding a rewarding job or a calling?
One explanation: Because to find a job or calling you need to know what you like to do, and by the time you graduate from college formal schooling has eroded your natural radar for detecting things which genuinely excite you.
Think about it...You've just graduated from college. You have just spent the last 17 years of your life in a formal schooling environment non-stop. As a young child, through to adolescence, into your early adult years, an authority figure has been telling you what to read, study, and write, and then judging it good or bad.
Take learning how to write. 99% of the writing you do in school involves offering answers not questions. A teacher gives you an essay topic, and you write about it. Over and over again. Yet, the real word rewards those who themselves can ask the right question. Coming up with an essay topic is 99% of the work -- yet teachers rarely make you do this.
Then there's the formal school philosophy promoting breadth not depth, weaknesses not strengths. If in school you found yourself unusually interested in a particular topic area, you couldn't really pursue it seriously since you had all your other classes to manage. I.e., if you found yourself a math whiz, it's the rare school that will seek to nurture this precocity. Instead, they said if you finish math early, get on with your English, biology and basket-weaving homework.
When parents reviewed your report card, did they ever say, "Wow - an A+! Why don't you continue to focus on that and maybe you can become really good at it?" No. They probably stroked their hairless chin, nodded solemnly at the A, and then pounced on you about the C. Whereas the real word rewards those who can discover and build upon a couple core natural strengths and interests, in school you're taught to pursue a broad balancing act and shore up weaknesses.
So there are two intertwined dynamics in school that I think contribute to the aimlessness of new college grads: an entrenched habit of rule-following (the real world has no clear rules and no clear authority articulating them) and the promoted philosophy of "be pretty good at lots of things as opposed to extraordinarily good at one thing."
Bottom Line: Formal schooling dulls one's exploration of natural interests. To ask yourself what you naturally enjoy and excel at, and then pursue it vigorously, would detract from the balancing act and contradict the authority structure. Unfortunately, asking yourself this very question is the key to a rewarding real-world career!"
Also met with the Mermaids president to talk show stuff. There is a very funny (probably one-sided) feud going on between the "new blood" and "old blood" in Mermaids. The "new blood" complains the "old blood" only cast "old blood" people, and then proceed to cast only "new blood" in retaliation, perpetuating the cycle and causing there to be no difference between the groups. Meanwhile, I cast all Freshers and 4th/5th years, who don't know/give a shit! Anyways, the prez is "old blood royalty" by the standards of "la revelucion!", but he's really enthusiastic about the online show and I'd like to have him involved both for what he can bring (resources, knowledge of St Andrews' weird and wacky ways) and to bridge the imaginary social gap. We mainly just chatted about stuff we were working on and what the main obstacles might be. What I found most interesting and entertaining was his assurance of support. It went something like, "if you need anything, or if anyone gives you a hard time, let me know." Who is going to give me a hard time? It's theatre, not drug trafficking. It was a very sweet and Mafia-like thing to say, and on reflection I think it showed the faux status of the leadership position, where an offer of help comes in the form of protection from bullies. But honestly, all of school government is a hoax, as is (I suspect) much of "management" and "leadership" in that oh-so-distant "real world". It got me thinking about positions of power and responsibility, and just how firmly we create and maintain their illusion. The illusion itself gets you nothing, but its ability to convince others to go along with you is all-important. Directing and the always-competitive theatre friendships this year have got me thinking a lot about power relationships.
But enough about that. Time to go pay my respects at a party and then head off for bed. I'll leave you with some good education bashing from Ben Casnocha's blog today that I found really accurate:
"Here's today's question: Why do so many young people, upon graduating college, have such a hard time finding a rewarding job or a calling?
One explanation: Because to find a job or calling you need to know what you like to do, and by the time you graduate from college formal schooling has eroded your natural radar for detecting things which genuinely excite you.
Think about it...You've just graduated from college. You have just spent the last 17 years of your life in a formal schooling environment non-stop. As a young child, through to adolescence, into your early adult years, an authority figure has been telling you what to read, study, and write, and then judging it good or bad.
Take learning how to write. 99% of the writing you do in school involves offering answers not questions. A teacher gives you an essay topic, and you write about it. Over and over again. Yet, the real word rewards those who themselves can ask the right question. Coming up with an essay topic is 99% of the work -- yet teachers rarely make you do this.
Then there's the formal school philosophy promoting breadth not depth, weaknesses not strengths. If in school you found yourself unusually interested in a particular topic area, you couldn't really pursue it seriously since you had all your other classes to manage. I.e., if you found yourself a math whiz, it's the rare school that will seek to nurture this precocity. Instead, they said if you finish math early, get on with your English, biology and basket-weaving homework.
When parents reviewed your report card, did they ever say, "Wow - an A+! Why don't you continue to focus on that and maybe you can become really good at it?" No. They probably stroked their hairless chin, nodded solemnly at the A, and then pounced on you about the C. Whereas the real word rewards those who can discover and build upon a couple core natural strengths and interests, in school you're taught to pursue a broad balancing act and shore up weaknesses.
So there are two intertwined dynamics in school that I think contribute to the aimlessness of new college grads: an entrenched habit of rule-following (the real world has no clear rules and no clear authority articulating them) and the promoted philosophy of "be pretty good at lots of things as opposed to extraordinarily good at one thing."
Bottom Line: Formal schooling dulls one's exploration of natural interests. To ask yourself what you naturally enjoy and excel at, and then pursue it vigorously, would detract from the balancing act and contradict the authority structure. Unfortunately, asking yourself this very question is the key to a rewarding real-world career!"
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Awww
As the US does its precious "oh wait, we've been wrongfully invading countries, killing and torturing people for the last 8 years in the name of a Democracy whose spread will supposedly benefit everyone because of the human rights it brings", the UK has it's own cute little unique quirks going on.
November 25th saw the beginning of National ID cards being handed out (for the first time since WWII), and by 2010 they want to have a comprehensive National ID Register that will track people's movements and personal information, and has no upper limit restrictions on what information may be stored on it. Now a page on Wikipedia on a German rock band (Scorpions, if you're curious) has attracted ire because one of the band's album's covers features a nude girl, and so is considered child pornography. The page was censored--at this time I don't know if I can't see it because the picture has been removed by users or by UK internet providers. Still, fun business.
Personal-wise: Had two bad lectures today. The stats (in SD) one covered so much ground so generally that it ended up both confusing and full of inaccuracies and half-truths that even I could spot. In Philosophy I may just have been tired, but the lecture seemed to jump around a lot and not have a concrete point or central idea, and several of the ideas contradicted one another. I have been managing to keep on top of the reading, though, so that's good. The the first night of Macbeth, which went pretty well. I know my lines, which is exciting because I realised "oh, I should learn these" this last Friday, as we were not given an off-book date. As I type most of my upper body/face/hair is painted red for ghostiness. This weekend is party heavy, next week almost empty, and I am looking forward to getting back to LA.
November 25th saw the beginning of National ID cards being handed out (for the first time since WWII), and by 2010 they want to have a comprehensive National ID Register that will track people's movements and personal information, and has no upper limit restrictions on what information may be stored on it. Now a page on Wikipedia on a German rock band (Scorpions, if you're curious) has attracted ire because one of the band's album's covers features a nude girl, and so is considered child pornography. The page was censored--at this time I don't know if I can't see it because the picture has been removed by users or by UK internet providers. Still, fun business.
Personal-wise: Had two bad lectures today. The stats (in SD) one covered so much ground so generally that it ended up both confusing and full of inaccuracies and half-truths that even I could spot. In Philosophy I may just have been tired, but the lecture seemed to jump around a lot and not have a concrete point or central idea, and several of the ideas contradicted one another. I have been managing to keep on top of the reading, though, so that's good. The the first night of Macbeth, which went pretty well. I know my lines, which is exciting because I realised "oh, I should learn these" this last Friday, as we were not given an off-book date. As I type most of my upper body/face/hair is painted red for ghostiness. This weekend is party heavy, next week almost empty, and I am looking forward to getting back to LA.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
2 interesting internet thoughts today
Both about online gaming (which, apparently, 30% of the US does--and Second Life, a life simulator rather than a traditional 'game', is played mostly by females and over-30s). Both about language on the internet, an international space. The first: in Second Life, there are a number of user-created bots (mini-programs) that you can buy in-game that do simultaneous translation with google/babelfish. The result I'm sure is horribly muddled, but decipherable. The second: in more fighting-oriented games (World of Warcraft, etc) you see a lot of multi-lingual collaboration because the game has its own mini-language, largely of English abbreviations that become understood as words in their own right. There are some common to the internet (lol-laughing out loud, brb-be right back), and some more game specific (afk-away from keyboard, kekeke-laughing [from the Korean usage] and, most disturbingly perhaps, rl-real life [as in, "my rl gf (girlfriend) is calling-brb"]).
So, could the internet be the death of language? Or is this a symptom of a wider phenomenon of mixing languages (see: English). Or is the whole internet thing overblown and nothing is honestly changing at all.
So, could the internet be the death of language? Or is this a symptom of a wider phenomenon of mixing languages (see: English). Or is the whole internet thing overblown and nothing is honestly changing at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
