...and yeah, I really do *think.*
What still stays with me the most, years after reading Atlas Shrugged, is the (truthful) irony. The irony of having dependent enemies. The irony of only being able to defeat them by becoming something other than yourself. The irony of loved-ones being the biggest threat to being true to other things that you love (ie, a person's love doesn't always have a homogeneous direction. A person would be lucky to have laser-like love). The very cruel irony in the possibility of being confused about which "side" you are on, such as Cheryl (I'm not sure if this is the exact text, it's all I could find online):
“She had to escape from Jim she thought. Where?–she asked, looking around her with a glance like a cry of prayer. She would have seized upon a job in a five-and-ten, in that laundry, or in any of the dismal shops she passed. But she would work, she thought, and the harder she worked the more malevolence she would draw from the people around her, and she would not know when truth would be expected of her and when a lie, but the stricter her honesty, the greater the fraud she would be asked to suffer at their hands. She had seen it before, and had borne it, in the home of her family, in the shops of the slums, but she had thought these were vicious exceptions, chance evils to escape and forget. Now she knew they were not exceptions, that theirs was the code accepted by the world, that it was a creed of living, known by all, but kept unnamed, leering at her from people’s eyes in that sly guilty look she had never been able to understand–and at the root of the creed, hidden by silence lying in wait for her in the cellar of the city, and in the cellars of their souls, their was a thing which one could not live. No exit–her shreds of awareness were saying, beating it into the pavements in the sound of her steps–no exit…no refuge…no friend. Like that dog she heard about, she thought…somebody’s dog in somebody’s laboratory…the dog who got his signals switched on him and saw no way to tell satisfaction from torture, saw food change to beatings and beatings change to food, saw his eyes and ears deceiving him and his judgment futile and his consciousness impotent in a shifting, swimming, shapeless world, and gave up, refusing to eat at that price or to live in a world of that kind…No! was the only conscious word in her brain: no! no! no! not your way! not your world, even if this "NO" is all that's to be left of mine!”.
The only way, I think, to live sanely once you get to that point, is to somehow accept the duality of things, and keep trying to solve the mystery (though the painfulness of Cheryl's particular situation, and certainly of the dog's situation, make that very difficult to hope for in those situations):
"Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that." - GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy
But I like logic. Love it, actually; always have! So I'm not sure if I can go so far as to accept the further conclusions of Chesterton:
"There is a notion adrift everywhere that imagination, especially mystical imagination, is dangerous to a man’s mental balance. . . . Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic; I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination...The general fact is simple. Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. . . . The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits."
Poor Gödel (a logician who supposedly died of paranoia). Perhaps Chesterton was right afterall (immersion in logic drives people crazy). Or, perhaps Goedel was actually right (ie, not paranoid). Each is a scary thought in its own right (ie, perhaps I find neither interpretation to be preferred). A World Without Time had a brief passage of Goedel's own thoughts relating to this:
"...for a Platonist or conceptual realist, the mind encounters an ideal entity in a manner parallel to the way the eye tracks a physical object. In both cases, we are confronted with something real that we have not ourselves created. We grasp it, therefore, only partially and in stages, gaining new insights as we shift perspective. 'We begin with vague perceptions of a concept,' says Gödel, 'as we see an animal from far away or take two stars for one before using a telescope.' Since the entity is not a child of our own imagination, we will never exhaust the information to be gained by different ways of approaching it, but we may reach a limit after which we no longer find ourselves bumping up against surprises or running into mysteries.'"
Perhaps this is what real thinking is like. Gatto is fond of pushing what he calls "dialectical thinking." As far as I can tell, it means being able to consider an issue from opposite/multiple point of view simultaneously. A narrow mind simply cannot hold that much information at one time. Gatto is always quoting somebody (I can't remember just who at the moment), who basically said that if you cannot think dialectically, you are not really even human, you are little better than an animal.
Perhaps this is what real thinking really is like. If so, there are some days when the strain of trying to *REALLY* think makes we want to conclude that ignorance really is bliss.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Year in Flowers
Some of the best shots from my garden this year:
Some early Muscari
The shade garden in spring
A spectacular snapdragon specimen (taken by Adrian)
Some Sweet William grown from seed
Lone Monte Negro Lily with California Poppies and Sweet William
And probably my favorite of the year, a volunteer Shirley Poppy (I think)
Some early Muscari
The shade garden in spring
A spectacular snapdragon specimen (taken by Adrian)
Some Sweet William grown from seed
Lone Monte Negro Lily with California Poppies and Sweet William
And probably my favorite of the year, a volunteer Shirley Poppy (I think)
Monday, November 2, 2009
Food, Inc - and ensuing thoughts...
Adrian found a documentary called Food, Inc, and we watched it. It was really well made, particularly in that it didn't seem politically biased. There were both Republicans and Democrats involved, and government was criticized as well as big business. The whole point of the movie was more-or-less modern Upton Sinclair stuff. In that, the facts don't really surprise me. But it presented quite a bit of interesting information that I think goes beyond food, and becomes a commentary on business and government.
I know that, officially, Fascism had something to do with Mussolini and Italy. But, more than that, I couldn't tell you at this point. I suppose I could just go look it up in the dictionary, but I have a vague memory of having already done that... multiple times... and still I draw a blank - so would it really help? Anyway, some of the Ron Paul/libertarian types that I listen to define it as the marriage of big government and big business. That is the def that sticks with me. I have been desperately searching for a YouTube clip of Nobel Prize winner in economic, Milton Friedman, stating something to the effect of: "One of the reasons why I'm so against big government is because of what happens once industry gets control of it." ...and then goes on to discuss government-industrial-complexes. But, alas, I cannot find it!
Anyway, this video showed one way in which government regulations backfire. For instance, the government subsidizes corn. It probably started out as a way to "help poor farmers" and make sure America didn't go hungry. But like most government acts, it never went away. This makes American-grown corn artificially cheap for consumers, including corporate consumers. There are many consequences of having such a ready supply of cheap (below production costs) corn:
1. Farmers in third world countries growing corn can't compete with the artificially low prices of US taxpayer subsidized corn grown in America. They go out of business.
2. Mass production developers rely on cheap corn to produce all sorts of unnatural additives such as: Calcium lactate or stearate, Calcium stearoyl lactylate, Dextrin or Dextrose, Ethyl maltol, Fumaric or Lactic acid, Gluconolactone or Glucono delta-lactone, Glucose, Glycerine, Hydrolyzed vegetable protein, Lecithin, Linoleic acid, Malt, Maltodextrin, Maltose or Maltol, Mannitol, Polydextrose, Polysorbates, Potassium gluconate, Propylene glycol, monostearate, Sodium ascorbate or other ascorbates, Sodium stearoyl, fumarate, Sodium-, Magnesium-, Calcium- or Potassium-fumarate, Stearyl citrate, Tocopherol (alpha-Tocopherol, vitamin E)... and , of course, who can forget: high fructose corn syrup.
3. Energy researchers (particularly gov't researchers), spend (waste?) lots of time and money to develop ethanol from corn. And, it's essentially a worse product than gaosline (both for the envorinment and as a fuel)
4. Feed lots rely on cheap corn to feed the cattle, thus creating many nutritional problems abd health risks (as Food, Inc explains)
So, the simple, seemingly-well-intended desire to use gov't power to "help poor farmers" has led to all of these unintended, negative, consequences. Another point to ponder is that key members of the FDA are actually special interest representatives for huge food corporations. Or, in case of idusty action being confirmed by government action (instead of the other way around): There are now 13 main meat processing plants in the US (according to Food, Inc). I remember hearing about a bill, not too long ago, that would require all meat that is legally bought and sold (and perhaps even all meat that is simply eaten by humans) to be processed at the plants, and these plants only - in the name of safety (fewer production facilities are easier to regulate - no?). But with with a corrupt FDA that essentially creates a monopoly for their own profit, excluding safe, small, local producers, we are once again brought back to Plato: "Who will watch the watchmen?" I'm afraid Plato's naive approach isn't going to work. (lol - but, please, don't confuse me with Vizzini for saying so!)
Thomas Jefferson (or maybe Gerald Ford) said:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Anyway, whoever said it, it strikes me as very true. Now, above, I've just outlined how liberals-for-big-government can cause problems. But, I think it's worth asking if conservatives-for-big-government can't create big problems too?
Food, Inc talks about how Monsanto lobbyists have managed to pass a bill that allows their genetically modified seeds to be patented. Since they own the patent, they can also prohibit farmers from saving seed each year to replant the next year (thus forcing the farmers to buy new seed form them each year). Furthermore, if farmers who decide to grow heirloom varieties are adjacent to Monsanto seed farmers, and their crops get "contaminated" (ie pollinated) with Monsanto seed DNA, they aren't allowed to save their seed either. An independent third party who simply "cleans seed" that is saved, can be brought to trial and put out of business as a result of this whole situation. It's seems to me a very interesting coincidence that all of this was preceded by a government that was a) big enough to attempt to prevent the growth and use of all marijuana in the nation, and b) big enough to protect the profits of big music companies from copyright infringement, even to the point of shutting down third party facilitators such as Napster? Not exactly the product of liberals (well, I did read a story once about Hillary trying to get Universities to report students who illegally downloaded music - but I have no idea how I'd find it now).
While I'm at it, why not consider this question too:
Is a government that is big enough to attempt to stop all abortions also, perhaps, big enough to enforce a policy of forced abortion, such as China has?
In the case of The Patriot Act, which I think many conservatives supported because a) the Bush administration came up with it*, and b) they were afraid of terrorism, what happens when we get a president like Obama in power? So far... nothing. At least not that I'm aware of. But, when passing a bill like that, didn't ANY small-government-minded conservatives stop and think that Bush wouldn't be president forever? The terrorists wouldn't be a threat forever? But those laws will remain on the books. (And, of course, Obama supports should think about the future shift of power that will inevitably occur, and how the masses of laws put on the books by this administration may come back to haunt them). Political power in America is cyclical by design. And, partly, that is a blessing-in-disguise. But, it's interesting to me that both sides have their own aims, and want to use the power of government to solve their problems. They all think they can take the tiger by the tail, and not have it come around and bite them in the jugular. It's like the ring in Tolkien: Using the power seems like a good idea at the time, but in the end it will enslave you. Unfortunately, maybe not just you. Maybe everybody.
...and just because I hate to end with such a somber tone, let me re-summarize this way:
"It seemed like a good idea at the time" (imagine this in the context of how it was said in The Magnificent 7), but "This can only end in tears!" (imagine this as said by the little henchman creature in Disney's animated Anastasia)
* "Leastwise, I ASSUME the Bush administration came up with it. Who else would be up there? In her room???" (said like the nosy neighbor lady in Disney's original That Darn Cat). Come, come! Haven't I done enough research and fact checking for one blog? An internet blog? One that, I might add, it appears, and for all practical purposes, NOBODY READS!!!! (Waaaah). You see, now I'm having an argument with myself again. Doesn't it make sense how I can hold bored people in such contempt? The only time I am bored is when I am forced to do things I do not want to do. Left to myself, I am NEVER bored. Lonely, perhaps, on occassion, but never bored!
Boringness is in the eye of the beholder. So while I may disagree with someone for calling something else boring, I don't suppose I quite hold them in contempt. But to be bored is to consider one's own company boring. Which is... alternately laughable and contemptuous (if you can't stand your own boringness, why foist it on me??). It's like... "You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." (Princess Bride), or "Stop saying that! Would someone PLEASE make him stop saying that?!" (What's Up Doc)
I know that, officially, Fascism had something to do with Mussolini and Italy. But, more than that, I couldn't tell you at this point. I suppose I could just go look it up in the dictionary, but I have a vague memory of having already done that... multiple times... and still I draw a blank - so would it really help? Anyway, some of the Ron Paul/libertarian types that I listen to define it as the marriage of big government and big business. That is the def that sticks with me. I have been desperately searching for a YouTube clip of Nobel Prize winner in economic, Milton Friedman, stating something to the effect of: "One of the reasons why I'm so against big government is because of what happens once industry gets control of it." ...and then goes on to discuss government-industrial-complexes. But, alas, I cannot find it!
Anyway, this video showed one way in which government regulations backfire. For instance, the government subsidizes corn. It probably started out as a way to "help poor farmers" and make sure America didn't go hungry. But like most government acts, it never went away. This makes American-grown corn artificially cheap for consumers, including corporate consumers. There are many consequences of having such a ready supply of cheap (below production costs) corn:
1. Farmers in third world countries growing corn can't compete with the artificially low prices of US taxpayer subsidized corn grown in America. They go out of business.
2. Mass production developers rely on cheap corn to produce all sorts of unnatural additives such as: Calcium lactate or stearate, Calcium stearoyl lactylate, Dextrin or Dextrose, Ethyl maltol, Fumaric or Lactic acid, Gluconolactone or Glucono delta-lactone, Glucose, Glycerine, Hydrolyzed vegetable protein, Lecithin, Linoleic acid, Malt, Maltodextrin, Maltose or Maltol, Mannitol, Polydextrose, Polysorbates, Potassium gluconate, Propylene glycol, monostearate, Sodium ascorbate or other ascorbates, Sodium stearoyl, fumarate, Sodium-, Magnesium-, Calcium- or Potassium-fumarate, Stearyl citrate, Tocopherol (alpha-Tocopherol, vitamin E)... and , of course, who can forget: high fructose corn syrup.
3. Energy researchers (particularly gov't researchers), spend (waste?) lots of time and money to develop ethanol from corn. And, it's essentially a worse product than gaosline (both for the envorinment and as a fuel)
4. Feed lots rely on cheap corn to feed the cattle, thus creating many nutritional problems abd health risks (as Food, Inc explains)
So, the simple, seemingly-well-intended desire to use gov't power to "help poor farmers" has led to all of these unintended, negative, consequences. Another point to ponder is that key members of the FDA are actually special interest representatives for huge food corporations. Or, in case of idusty action being confirmed by government action (instead of the other way around): There are now 13 main meat processing plants in the US (according to Food, Inc). I remember hearing about a bill, not too long ago, that would require all meat that is legally bought and sold (and perhaps even all meat that is simply eaten by humans) to be processed at the plants, and these plants only - in the name of safety (fewer production facilities are easier to regulate - no?). But with with a corrupt FDA that essentially creates a monopoly for their own profit, excluding safe, small, local producers, we are once again brought back to Plato: "Who will watch the watchmen?" I'm afraid Plato's naive approach isn't going to work. (lol - but, please, don't confuse me with Vizzini for saying so!)
Thomas Jefferson (or maybe Gerald Ford) said:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Anyway, whoever said it, it strikes me as very true. Now, above, I've just outlined how liberals-for-big-government can cause problems. But, I think it's worth asking if conservatives-for-big-government can't create big problems too?
Food, Inc talks about how Monsanto lobbyists have managed to pass a bill that allows their genetically modified seeds to be patented. Since they own the patent, they can also prohibit farmers from saving seed each year to replant the next year (thus forcing the farmers to buy new seed form them each year). Furthermore, if farmers who decide to grow heirloom varieties are adjacent to Monsanto seed farmers, and their crops get "contaminated" (ie pollinated) with Monsanto seed DNA, they aren't allowed to save their seed either. An independent third party who simply "cleans seed" that is saved, can be brought to trial and put out of business as a result of this whole situation. It's seems to me a very interesting coincidence that all of this was preceded by a government that was a) big enough to attempt to prevent the growth and use of all marijuana in the nation, and b) big enough to protect the profits of big music companies from copyright infringement, even to the point of shutting down third party facilitators such as Napster? Not exactly the product of liberals (well, I did read a story once about Hillary trying to get Universities to report students who illegally downloaded music - but I have no idea how I'd find it now).
While I'm at it, why not consider this question too:
Is a government that is big enough to attempt to stop all abortions also, perhaps, big enough to enforce a policy of forced abortion, such as China has?
In the case of The Patriot Act, which I think many conservatives supported because a) the Bush administration came up with it*, and b) they were afraid of terrorism, what happens when we get a president like Obama in power? So far... nothing. At least not that I'm aware of. But, when passing a bill like that, didn't ANY small-government-minded conservatives stop and think that Bush wouldn't be president forever? The terrorists wouldn't be a threat forever? But those laws will remain on the books. (And, of course, Obama supports should think about the future shift of power that will inevitably occur, and how the masses of laws put on the books by this administration may come back to haunt them). Political power in America is cyclical by design. And, partly, that is a blessing-in-disguise. But, it's interesting to me that both sides have their own aims, and want to use the power of government to solve their problems. They all think they can take the tiger by the tail, and not have it come around and bite them in the jugular. It's like the ring in Tolkien: Using the power seems like a good idea at the time, but in the end it will enslave you. Unfortunately, maybe not just you. Maybe everybody.
...and just because I hate to end with such a somber tone, let me re-summarize this way:
"It seemed like a good idea at the time" (imagine this in the context of how it was said in The Magnificent 7), but "This can only end in tears!" (imagine this as said by the little henchman creature in Disney's animated Anastasia)
* "Leastwise, I ASSUME the Bush administration came up with it. Who else would be up there? In her room???" (said like the nosy neighbor lady in Disney's original That Darn Cat). Come, come! Haven't I done enough research and fact checking for one blog? An internet blog? One that, I might add, it appears, and for all practical purposes, NOBODY READS!!!! (Waaaah). You see, now I'm having an argument with myself again. Doesn't it make sense how I can hold bored people in such contempt? The only time I am bored is when I am forced to do things I do not want to do. Left to myself, I am NEVER bored. Lonely, perhaps, on occassion, but never bored!
Boringness is in the eye of the beholder. So while I may disagree with someone for calling something else boring, I don't suppose I quite hold them in contempt. But to be bored is to consider one's own company boring. Which is... alternately laughable and contemptuous (if you can't stand your own boringness, why foist it on me??). It's like... "You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." (Princess Bride), or "Stop saying that! Would someone PLEASE make him stop saying that?!" (What's Up Doc)
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
My Medley
I decided to record myself singing a few of my favorite songs. The recorder I was using timed out at about thirty seconds. So, I just sang a few dozen different ones, and strung the best ones all together. They're all acapella. Also, they're in ogg vorbis; so if your player doesn't support that you made need to download a plugin.
-----
12/9/2010
I've since put the medley on YouTube (with pictures of flowers, of course - what else could I use?):
-----
12/9/2010
I've since put the medley on YouTube (with pictures of flowers, of course - what else could I use?):
Sunday, October 25, 2009
TV and Read-It!
As most of you probably already know, I basically grew up without a TV. I remember "movie nights" - special events every month or so when my Dad would rent several videos and a VCR and come home and hook up a computer monitor, and set it all up on the fireplace. Then we'd all stay up late into the night watching movies and eating junk food and camping out in sleeping bags in the living room. After every movie, we'd have a family discussion: What were the people who made this movie trying to say? Do we agree with this? Than, after a few days, the equipment would all get packed up and taken back to the video store.
Of course, I'd still get to watch movies/TV from time to time at friends' or grandparents' houses, or sometimes in motel/hotel rooms on vacation (in the rare event we weren't camping). Eventually, it got to the point where my parents decided we were watching too much TV that way, and limited it to one hour a day at friends' houses. As far as movies, my parents followed the ratings fairly strictly. PG means parental guidance - so, generally speaking, we weren't allowed to watch PG movies unless they had seen it first and OK'ed it. I remember being at my friend's house for a birthday party and needing to call home to get permission:
Me: Mom, they want to watch a movie called "Princess Bride," it's PG - can I watch it?
Mom: I don't know. I haven't seen that one"
Me: Please??
Mom: (to my Dad in the background: What do you think? Dad: I haven't seen it either. But at least she called first; maybe she's old enough now.) OK.
Me: Thanks!!!
(a while later)
Me: Mom, they want to watch a movie called "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun," it's PG - can I watch it?
Mom: You already watched one - I think that's enough for today.
Me: No I didn't! They all got bored and we never finished "Princess Bride" so now they picked this one.
Mom: OK. But this is the last one.
Me: I hope so!
It always seemed to me that my TV-watching public schooled friends got bored way too easily; especially with movies! It was infuriating. Even today I have a hard time keeping my cool if Adrian gets bored with a movie (as he often does; perhaps even with good reason). People complaining about being bored really gets on my nerves. As a kid, I wasn't even allowed to say the word "bored." The only time I've felt that someone outside my family could sympathize with my view of boredom was when reading something by Gatto:
"One afternoon when I was seven I complained to [my grandfather] of boredom, and he batted me hard on the head. He told me that I was never to use that term in his presence again, that if I was bored it was my fault and no one else's. The obligation to amuse and instruct myself was entirely my own, and people who didn't know that were childish people, to be avoided if possible. Certainty not to be trusted."
Anyway, back to the main topic. Eventually, video stores quit renting VCRs, and we ended up buying one (a VCR, not a video store). At first it was only connected now and then, but inevitably the times when my parents forgot to disconnect it were longer and longer. Eventually, the old monitor broke, and my parents bought an actual TV. Grandparents and other people gave us videos as gifts. We never got cable, and we never watched TV per-se, but video watching became quiet commonplace. I'm not sure if my younger siblings really remember literally living in a house without a TV as I do, or the special movie nights with a computer monitor and rented VCR on the fireplace. I also don't think they have the same sense of always trying to be prepared for a discussion of every movie.
My parents still stuck to their guns as far as ratings, though. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that my younger siblings often watched movies without permission at their friends' houses, and unlike me never bothered to call home and ask. As a teenager, I remember it had become quite common to take advantage of the loophole that old black and white movies from the library very often were unrated. Haha! Which spawned a unique, if small, family culture amongst us siblings.
Another thing that is a unique feature of our family culture is: Read-It! Many other Christian homeschooling families also banned TV (or at least severely limited it), and paid strict attention to movie ratings. But, my Dad did something that I consider truly brilliant: he created a substitute. Perhaps his love of good literature (deep at least, if narrow at points) goes back to the fact that somewhere in our family tree is the tutor of Charles Dickens. He really was able to bring a story alive: he wasn't simply reading words on a page, he breathed a unique and personal voice into every character - it was hard not to listen. I remember when he used to read Tolkien's orcs, he'd end up needing my mom to bring him a glass of water every 5 minutes, and we'd never get as many chapters out of him on those nights. But, of course, we tried. This is where the names comes from. At the end of every chapter, where the author so artfully leaves you hanging, we'd chant, scream even: Read-It! Read-It! Read-It! Dit-Daddy, Dit-Daddy, DIT!!
Of course, as I got older, I did get a bit spoiled with it. I remember more than once being quite put out that I had to spend the evening at home and listen to The Hobbit or something for the fourth time because we were having "family time" and all I wanted to do was go over to my friends' house.
Really, the culture of my family owes alot to my Dad: What he forbade, why, and what he replaced it with. My parents used to often say something along the lines of "If it's not good for kids, it's not good for adults either." Thus was avoid, I think, alot of the hypocrisy that comes along with rules in other families. It wasn't that we weren't allowed to watch TV, but then as soon as we were asleep the parents would stay-up watching prime time. It was that life is both different and more important than TV: for them as well as us.
The eviction of TV from our house started when my older brother was a baby. My Dad says that alot of the reason why he decide to quit watching TV was because he found it addicting, but really wanted to spend more time improving his drumming skills. My parents literally cut the plug off the TV cord, and then put the TV in the basement. After a few months, they had some excuse to watch something, and my Dad would mend the cord. Then, they'd forget to put the thing back in the basement, and would slowly get addicted again, until they decided to cut the cord again. This continued until they finally cut the cord to a stub, and decide just to throw out the whole set. It was over a decade before they bought a replacement, and that replacement never took up the same prominence as the old one.
Homeschool groups often put on graduation ceremonies - and because the groups are small, often each graduate is allowed some time to showcase a talent. My older brother gave a speech (which my Dad helped him write). I don't remember the whole thing, but I remember a phrase "You can either sit around and watch TV; or get up and do something and be on TV." So far, none of us has really ended-up on TV (these days, I'm not even sure I'd want to be on TV), but I think my life has been much more interesting because of the lack of TV. And so, I thank my parents for (mostly) banning TV from our house.
Of course, I'd still get to watch movies/TV from time to time at friends' or grandparents' houses, or sometimes in motel/hotel rooms on vacation (in the rare event we weren't camping). Eventually, it got to the point where my parents decided we were watching too much TV that way, and limited it to one hour a day at friends' houses. As far as movies, my parents followed the ratings fairly strictly. PG means parental guidance - so, generally speaking, we weren't allowed to watch PG movies unless they had seen it first and OK'ed it. I remember being at my friend's house for a birthday party and needing to call home to get permission:
Me: Mom, they want to watch a movie called "Princess Bride," it's PG - can I watch it?
Mom: I don't know. I haven't seen that one"
Me: Please??
Mom: (to my Dad in the background: What do you think? Dad: I haven't seen it either. But at least she called first; maybe she's old enough now.) OK.
Me: Thanks!!!
(a while later)
Me: Mom, they want to watch a movie called "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun," it's PG - can I watch it?
Mom: You already watched one - I think that's enough for today.
Me: No I didn't! They all got bored and we never finished "Princess Bride" so now they picked this one.
Mom: OK. But this is the last one.
Me: I hope so!
It always seemed to me that my TV-watching public schooled friends got bored way too easily; especially with movies! It was infuriating. Even today I have a hard time keeping my cool if Adrian gets bored with a movie (as he often does; perhaps even with good reason). People complaining about being bored really gets on my nerves. As a kid, I wasn't even allowed to say the word "bored." The only time I've felt that someone outside my family could sympathize with my view of boredom was when reading something by Gatto:
"One afternoon when I was seven I complained to [my grandfather] of boredom, and he batted me hard on the head. He told me that I was never to use that term in his presence again, that if I was bored it was my fault and no one else's. The obligation to amuse and instruct myself was entirely my own, and people who didn't know that were childish people, to be avoided if possible. Certainty not to be trusted."
Anyway, back to the main topic. Eventually, video stores quit renting VCRs, and we ended up buying one (a VCR, not a video store). At first it was only connected now and then, but inevitably the times when my parents forgot to disconnect it were longer and longer. Eventually, the old monitor broke, and my parents bought an actual TV. Grandparents and other people gave us videos as gifts. We never got cable, and we never watched TV per-se, but video watching became quiet commonplace. I'm not sure if my younger siblings really remember literally living in a house without a TV as I do, or the special movie nights with a computer monitor and rented VCR on the fireplace. I also don't think they have the same sense of always trying to be prepared for a discussion of every movie.
My parents still stuck to their guns as far as ratings, though. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that my younger siblings often watched movies without permission at their friends' houses, and unlike me never bothered to call home and ask. As a teenager, I remember it had become quite common to take advantage of the loophole that old black and white movies from the library very often were unrated. Haha! Which spawned a unique, if small, family culture amongst us siblings.
Another thing that is a unique feature of our family culture is: Read-It! Many other Christian homeschooling families also banned TV (or at least severely limited it), and paid strict attention to movie ratings. But, my Dad did something that I consider truly brilliant: he created a substitute. Perhaps his love of good literature (deep at least, if narrow at points) goes back to the fact that somewhere in our family tree is the tutor of Charles Dickens. He really was able to bring a story alive: he wasn't simply reading words on a page, he breathed a unique and personal voice into every character - it was hard not to listen. I remember when he used to read Tolkien's orcs, he'd end up needing my mom to bring him a glass of water every 5 minutes, and we'd never get as many chapters out of him on those nights. But, of course, we tried. This is where the names comes from. At the end of every chapter, where the author so artfully leaves you hanging, we'd chant, scream even: Read-It! Read-It! Read-It! Dit-Daddy, Dit-Daddy, DIT!!
Of course, as I got older, I did get a bit spoiled with it. I remember more than once being quite put out that I had to spend the evening at home and listen to The Hobbit or something for the fourth time because we were having "family time" and all I wanted to do was go over to my friends' house.
Really, the culture of my family owes alot to my Dad: What he forbade, why, and what he replaced it with. My parents used to often say something along the lines of "If it's not good for kids, it's not good for adults either." Thus was avoid, I think, alot of the hypocrisy that comes along with rules in other families. It wasn't that we weren't allowed to watch TV, but then as soon as we were asleep the parents would stay-up watching prime time. It was that life is both different and more important than TV: for them as well as us.
The eviction of TV from our house started when my older brother was a baby. My Dad says that alot of the reason why he decide to quit watching TV was because he found it addicting, but really wanted to spend more time improving his drumming skills. My parents literally cut the plug off the TV cord, and then put the TV in the basement. After a few months, they had some excuse to watch something, and my Dad would mend the cord. Then, they'd forget to put the thing back in the basement, and would slowly get addicted again, until they decided to cut the cord again. This continued until they finally cut the cord to a stub, and decide just to throw out the whole set. It was over a decade before they bought a replacement, and that replacement never took up the same prominence as the old one.
Homeschool groups often put on graduation ceremonies - and because the groups are small, often each graduate is allowed some time to showcase a talent. My older brother gave a speech (which my Dad helped him write). I don't remember the whole thing, but I remember a phrase "You can either sit around and watch TV; or get up and do something and be on TV." So far, none of us has really ended-up on TV (these days, I'm not even sure I'd want to be on TV), but I think my life has been much more interesting because of the lack of TV. And so, I thank my parents for (mostly) banning TV from our house.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Dangerous Knowledge
I like to read books. Adrian will listen to books on CD, and watch documentaries, but won't read actual books. He says that after staring at a computer screen all day long, it hurts his eyes to stare at a book. That makes sense. At least, it would make sense with listening to books on CD - but watching movies/documentaries doesn't seem too easy on the eyes. Hmm. Still, I wanted to find a way to share some things I'd read with him (specifically, Gödel's ideas), and came across a Google Video made by the BBC called Dangerous Knowledge.
Watching this vid, I was reminded of a few things. At one point, WWI is mentioned as sort of going along with the intellectual spirit of the times (zeitgeist?), which was basically alot of conflict that didn't resolve anything. Anyway, I've been slowly making my way through Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Times by Dr. Carroll Quigley. I'm just getting through WWI now, and I can't think of a more perfect way to describe it than that "alot of conflict that didn't really resolve anything."
The other thing that reminded me of something was that the reason this is "Dangerous" Knowledge is because all the scientists/mathematicians featured went crazy and died from causes related to their craziness. A long time ago, I think before we were even married, I had said something about how it could be cool to be a genius. Adrian countered, saying that most geniuses go crazy or something, and he didn't have any interest in being a genius because of that. I said that, since their ideas were so great, maybe it was worth it, maybe going crazy isn't really all that bad. At least you wouldn't be boring. Adrian probably just found that idea cute, laughed, and kissed me. Which is fine by me. There are many worse ways that one could respond. Generally speaking, he's the practical one and I'm the dreamer (Well, not in the Bohemian way, maybe more in an autistic way -see below- though, somewhere on my mom's side we are supposed to have a relative from Bohemia...). Opposites attract for a reason.
But, really, it's not the first time I've thought about the idea that "going crazy" is a small price to pay for being a genius. Like, autistic savants seem really cool. If I were to have some kind of mental disorder, I think autism might be what I come the closest too. They like order and familiarity. They are very habit bound, and the slightest change can really upset them. They aren't particularly social, and sometimes have trouble even recognizing faces. Now, I'm not actually autistic, and I'm certainly no savant. But I couldn't help wondering (I think the book Positive Addiction started me thinking like this) if it would be possible to become autistic, or become a savant, just by imitating their habits. I remember reading Tesla's autobiography; I can't help but think that he was probably mildly autistic, and maybe even had some savant capabilities. Anyway, he seemd to think that his abilities could be taught.
Oh, and I've just been thinking that this (sacrificing sanity for genius) is another interpretation for one of my favorite quotes from The Horse and His Boy "Please, you are so beautiful. You may eat me if you like. I'd rather be eaten by you than fed by anyone else."
Anyway, onto Dangerous Knowledge:
Watching this vid, I was reminded of a few things. At one point, WWI is mentioned as sort of going along with the intellectual spirit of the times (zeitgeist?), which was basically alot of conflict that didn't resolve anything. Anyway, I've been slowly making my way through Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Times by Dr. Carroll Quigley. I'm just getting through WWI now, and I can't think of a more perfect way to describe it than that "alot of conflict that didn't really resolve anything."
The other thing that reminded me of something was that the reason this is "Dangerous" Knowledge is because all the scientists/mathematicians featured went crazy and died from causes related to their craziness. A long time ago, I think before we were even married, I had said something about how it could be cool to be a genius. Adrian countered, saying that most geniuses go crazy or something, and he didn't have any interest in being a genius because of that. I said that, since their ideas were so great, maybe it was worth it, maybe going crazy isn't really all that bad. At least you wouldn't be boring. Adrian probably just found that idea cute, laughed, and kissed me. Which is fine by me. There are many worse ways that one could respond. Generally speaking, he's the practical one and I'm the dreamer (Well, not in the Bohemian way, maybe more in an autistic way -see below- though, somewhere on my mom's side we are supposed to have a relative from Bohemia...). Opposites attract for a reason.
But, really, it's not the first time I've thought about the idea that "going crazy" is a small price to pay for being a genius. Like, autistic savants seem really cool. If I were to have some kind of mental disorder, I think autism might be what I come the closest too. They like order and familiarity. They are very habit bound, and the slightest change can really upset them. They aren't particularly social, and sometimes have trouble even recognizing faces. Now, I'm not actually autistic, and I'm certainly no savant. But I couldn't help wondering (I think the book Positive Addiction started me thinking like this) if it would be possible to become autistic, or become a savant, just by imitating their habits. I remember reading Tesla's autobiography; I can't help but think that he was probably mildly autistic, and maybe even had some savant capabilities. Anyway, he seemd to think that his abilities could be taught.
Oh, and I've just been thinking that this (sacrificing sanity for genius) is another interpretation for one of my favorite quotes from The Horse and His Boy "Please, you are so beautiful. You may eat me if you like. I'd rather be eaten by you than fed by anyone else."
Anyway, onto Dangerous Knowledge:
Monday, October 19, 2009
What Is Selfishness?
If I remember correctly, I wrote this just before I started reading Atlas Shrugged. I think Ayn Rand herself actually wrote something similar. I was reading Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy, and he was explaining on one of the reason's for the Biblical commands against adultery. Basically, he was saying that love - every kind of love - is a good thing. However, as finite human beings, we should concentrate our love (particularly our physical love) on only one person, because we are finite. So, now, if I were going to coin my own virtue (as Ayn Rand did), I would borrow Willard's thinking and define something like a "Virtue of Proximity." Basically, the further removed you are from a situation, the less you will know about it, and therefore the less you should concern yourself with it. If you go sticking your nose into things you aren't really familiar with, you're likely to hurt rather than help. On second thought, you could just call it the "Virtue of Minding Your Own Business."
Selfishness
First of all, let us say that selfishness is: to be self-centered, that is to put yourself and your own desires first. In other words, to do things because they bring benefit to you. For instance, giving money to the poor might bring a nice feeling to the benefactor. In fact, most acts that we would call "selfless" have some kind of emotional reward. If the person being selfless truly intended to gain NOTHING from their actions, then they would be doing things without reasons, in other words they would be acting irrationally. Still, selfishness has some rather negative connotations, even if it seems (IMHO) to be a semantically correct title. The kind of selfishness I have described is rather broad, and the following divisions seem the most natural to me:
Type I selfishness: Positive, philanthropic, cooperative, mutual, unselfish
Example: Giving money to the poor in order that *you* may store up treasure in heaven.
Type II selfishness: Neutral, isolated
Example: Choosing to eat your favorite meal.
Type III selfishness: Negative, harmful, selfish
Example: Stealing to gain wealth.
Example: Giving money to the poor in order that *you* may store up treasure in heaven.
Type II selfishness: Neutral, isolated
Example: Choosing to eat your favorite meal.
Type III selfishness: Negative, harmful, selfish
Example: Stealing to gain wealth.
Positive selfishness stems from the idea that if something benefits one person, it is likely to benefit others. This benefit to others might or might not be intentional. Negative selfishness comes when what benefits one person hurts others. Neutral selfishness simply has no consequences for anyone other than the perpetrator. I definitely believe in positive selfishness, but I'm not so sure the other two really exist.
First of all, I'm not sure neutral selfishness exists because I'm not sure it is possible to do anything without it affecting other people. Therefore, I would have to say that for purposes of discussion, neutral selfishness is that in which the person is ignorant of the effects on others. It is this definition which tends to make me want to say that ignorance is bliss. So it remains to be decided if neutral selfishness stemming from intentional ignorance is really neutral. However, the opportunity cost of shedding this ignorance has no limit. Therefore can a person really be blamed for intentional ignorance, and if so how much can they be blamed?
Second is the reason I'm not sure that negative selfishness exists. I believe in absolute right and wrong. These are not relative to the individual. Therefore, how can a single (willful) event be good for one person and bad for another? I am stressing here that cost and benefit usually reach deeper than they appear. If one person does something to hurt another, then they also unintentionally hurt themselves. For instance, if you murder someone you might go to hell, and you will probably be punished on earth, by guilt if nothing else. Or, if people are really bringing benefit, to themselves, then they must be bringing benefit to others even if the others don't see it as a benefit. For instance: a parent that is disciplining a child. For the sake of discussion I will let negative selfishness be that which brings obvious hurt to others, while seeming to benefit the perpetrator.
Now, all of this calls for a very large dose of discretion. I administer that dosage by saying that all people have intrinsically equal susceptibility to ignorance of the true consequences of any given action. That is not to say that a person cannot work to improve their predictive odds in making judgment calls. The process of making good choices is improved by the process of making good choices. However, this still skirts the questioning of what makes the initial choice 'good,' or positively selfish... but don't look at me, I never said I had all the answers.
Anyway, since people can't always be sure about whether or not their actions are hurting others or not, and since they can't intentionally do things that bring them NO benefit unless they are crazy, it seems that the best thing to do is to pursue selfishness - ahem - KEEPING IN MIND that if it comes to their attention that they are hurting someone else, they should stop whatever it is that they are doing. Now, it seems to me that a person would usually be more aware of the true consequences of their action on themselves than on anyone else. Having said that, the most honest thing for a person to do is to always express their desires as a function of selfishness. Anyone who claims to be doing anything else is probably a liar. Ergo, if it seems at times that I am always thinking of myself first, I am. However, AFTER the first expression of an idea, I will try to always give room for a consideration of responses. That's not to say that I'm terribly good at it.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Sentences: Short & Sweet (...or, Short & Scary)
Haha! I just ran across this the other day. It was an assignment from my first on-campus college course. Basically, the task was to take a very simple sentence, and use descriptions to expand it:
Jennifer Giles
English 101
9-10-98
"Near the house stood a tree."
An ancient and twisted cypress tree, draped in Spanish moss, grew only a few yards from the deserted mansion.
"The sun went down."
The sun lingered, projecting its crimson glare onto the surface of the barren planet, then sluggishly departed to a hidden crevice in the sky.
Jennifer Giles
English 101
9-10-98
"Near the house stood a tree."
An ancient and twisted cypress tree, draped in Spanish moss, grew only a few yards from the deserted mansion.
"The sun went down."
The sun lingered, projecting its crimson glare onto the surface of the barren planet, then sluggishly departed to a hidden crevice in the sky.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Time, Part 3
I did once compose a letter to Brian Greene, author of The Elegant Universe, with yet more ideas. But, I can't seem to find it. Anyway, I recently (within the last few months), finished the book: A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy Of Gödel And Einstein by Palle Yourgrau. So, this brings me to the final planned installment of my trilogy of time blogs (that was a mouthful... er, handful).
So, for many years now, I had been wondering, how can time be considered a dimension if, unlike the other dimensions, we cannot stop or go backwards in it (and therefore the t-axis is non-interchangeable with x- y- z- axes)?
I think one of the posters before had started to go in this direction, but I had the feeling that he was simply repeating something he'd been taught, rather than actually getting to the heart of the question.What the book on Gödel and time that I recently finished helped me to understand was this:
Intuitive time and mathematical time ARE different concepts which do not necessarily coincide. Intuitive time DOES "pass," and there is a difference between past, present and future, and what's gone is gone. In relativity, time, for two different observers, can be relative. They may be in different enough situations that they perceive the passage of time as going at different rates, and there is no way to say who has the "better" or correct point of view. This is why Einstein famously said “To us believing physicists the distinction between the past, the present and the future is an illusion, albeit a persistent one.” Keep in mind, Einstein and Gödel were very close friends.
Einstein's theory of relativity constitutes a system of equations, any solution of which is a "world." Each unique solution represents a unique geometrical world (or universe). People talk about the universe expanding, curving, having multiple dimensions (superstring theory posits at least 10), and other claims that amount to geometrical statements. What Gödel did was to find a unique solution to relativity theory - a universe - in which the axis of time ran in a circle.
The thing about this was, that you can theoretically go fast enough (in a very fast spaceship) and come around to the same point in the circle that you once were. What this means is that time, in the intuitive sense, doesn't exist. The inhabitants of this world would probably still experience time the way we do, but logically it would be false to say that it still exists because if you can return to any point in time, then it hasn't truly passed.
Of course, in a geometrical sense, Gödel's Universe was very unlike our own (I won't go into cosmological details here). However, this is where the philosophical magic happens. There are two terms common in philosophy (which I finally got down, thanks to this book): ontology and epistemology. Ontology concerns the world as it actually is, whereas epistemology concerns what we are able to know about it. Much of modern philosophy tends towards epistemology, that is, only what we can directly sense or know is deemed important.
I had first heard of ontology based on different proofs for God's existence. There are many varieties of proofs for God, a short list would include:
empirical (a survey of facts, such as The Case for a Christ, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, etc)
teleological (intelligent design, basically)
Pascal's Wager (more of a suggestion than a proof)
ontological (... !?)
OK. I first heard of the ontological argument when reading a book called God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics. It comes from old church fathers/saints, I think. Anyway, the idea is this: think of something perfect. If you can find something wrong with it, it's not perfect. But, once you figure out what's wrong with it, you know how to correct the idea. Something infinite is better than something finite. Something living is better than something non-living. Something loving is better than something non-loving, etc. So, eventually you come up with an idea that is SO perfect, that nothing else can be more perfect. (Here's the part I don't get) Now that you've thought of this, it must exist. I don't get this because, afterall, I can imagine aliens. But I don't believe in them. I can imagine that I'm a millionaire, but I'm not. I guess the difference is that these things are not THE most perfect thing of all. If you don't call it "ontological proving," but instead call it simply "ontological reasoning," then I think it can be valid in certain instances. What Gödel did was to use ontological proving/reasoning to show that because there could be a universe without time, therefore all possible universes do not have time.
Whala! Intuitive time doesn't exist. If it weren't Gödel who said it, I don't think I could believe it.
I just need to study the idea of ontology ALOT more - afterall, Gödel's Universe isn't THE perfect thing either.
Time, Part IV
So, for many years now, I had been wondering, how can time be considered a dimension if, unlike the other dimensions, we cannot stop or go backwards in it (and therefore the t-axis is non-interchangeable with x- y- z- axes)?
I think one of the posters before had started to go in this direction, but I had the feeling that he was simply repeating something he'd been taught, rather than actually getting to the heart of the question.What the book on Gödel and time that I recently finished helped me to understand was this:
Intuitive time and mathematical time ARE different concepts which do not necessarily coincide. Intuitive time DOES "pass," and there is a difference between past, present and future, and what's gone is gone. In relativity, time, for two different observers, can be relative. They may be in different enough situations that they perceive the passage of time as going at different rates, and there is no way to say who has the "better" or correct point of view. This is why Einstein famously said “To us believing physicists the distinction between the past, the present and the future is an illusion, albeit a persistent one.” Keep in mind, Einstein and Gödel were very close friends.
Einstein's theory of relativity constitutes a system of equations, any solution of which is a "world." Each unique solution represents a unique geometrical world (or universe). People talk about the universe expanding, curving, having multiple dimensions (superstring theory posits at least 10), and other claims that amount to geometrical statements. What Gödel did was to find a unique solution to relativity theory - a universe - in which the axis of time ran in a circle.
The thing about this was, that you can theoretically go fast enough (in a very fast spaceship) and come around to the same point in the circle that you once were. What this means is that time, in the intuitive sense, doesn't exist. The inhabitants of this world would probably still experience time the way we do, but logically it would be false to say that it still exists because if you can return to any point in time, then it hasn't truly passed.
Of course, in a geometrical sense, Gödel's Universe was very unlike our own (I won't go into cosmological details here). However, this is where the philosophical magic happens. There are two terms common in philosophy (which I finally got down, thanks to this book): ontology and epistemology. Ontology concerns the world as it actually is, whereas epistemology concerns what we are able to know about it. Much of modern philosophy tends towards epistemology, that is, only what we can directly sense or know is deemed important.
I had first heard of ontology based on different proofs for God's existence. There are many varieties of proofs for God, a short list would include:
empirical (a survey of facts, such as The Case for a Christ, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, etc)
teleological (intelligent design, basically)
Pascal's Wager (more of a suggestion than a proof)
ontological (... !?)
OK. I first heard of the ontological argument when reading a book called God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics. It comes from old church fathers/saints, I think. Anyway, the idea is this: think of something perfect. If you can find something wrong with it, it's not perfect. But, once you figure out what's wrong with it, you know how to correct the idea. Something infinite is better than something finite. Something living is better than something non-living. Something loving is better than something non-loving, etc. So, eventually you come up with an idea that is SO perfect, that nothing else can be more perfect. (Here's the part I don't get) Now that you've thought of this, it must exist. I don't get this because, afterall, I can imagine aliens. But I don't believe in them. I can imagine that I'm a millionaire, but I'm not. I guess the difference is that these things are not THE most perfect thing of all. If you don't call it "ontological proving," but instead call it simply "ontological reasoning," then I think it can be valid in certain instances. What Gödel did was to use ontological proving/reasoning to show that because there could be a universe without time, therefore all possible universes do not have time.
Whala! Intuitive time doesn't exist. If it weren't Gödel who said it, I don't think I could believe it.
I just need to study the idea of ontology ALOT more - afterall, Gödel's Universe isn't THE perfect thing either.
Time, Part IV
Friday, October 9, 2009
Time, Part 2
I still haven’t checked up on the resources given to me by these people (my own motivation is the greatest impedance in my solution of anything…), though the ideas of treating any dimension as 1/d comes from The Elegant Universe. Anyway, here is the basic outline of the time discussion cont’d with other participants:
--- Jennifer .. wrote:
I was just wondering if there is ever any justification for treating time as 1/t instead of simply t, in the mathematics of physics.
My reasoning is:
1) much of relativity is based on observations dependent on non-Euclidean geometry
2) the observations hold for very large areas
3) in the case of time, they hold for very large velocities
4) time is a dimension, and therefore perhaps velocities are areas
but therein lies the problem. (area equals width X length) A=wl, but (velocity equals distance over time) v=d/t, not v=dt (distance X time); however, if time=1/t, then v=dt (velocity = distance X time). This could be interpreted as an area, because it is a measurement in one dimension multiplied by a measurement in another dimension (albeit non-spacial). If there is any merit to this reasoning, it would also imply that there is a dimension whose measurement is 1/t, and that time is possibly only a by-product of this "true" dimension. Let me know what you think.
~Milany
Date:
Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Subject:
Re: time=1/t
To:
"Jennifer" ..
Howdy Milany,
Wow you really know your stuff....actually much more than I know about classical physics. There is a website at www.reciprocalsystem.com. I think the people at that website will be able to talk to you much more intelligently than I could. This is what I know: According to Dewey B Larson, SpaceTime is actually what he calls 'Motion' and it is composed of 2 components: Space and Time, which exist in 3 dimensions each. Therefore, there are actually a total of 6 dimensions, not 4. As you probably know, there are actually 2 Theories of Relativity: The ‘General' and the 'Special'. The general theory of relativity 'works' as evidenced by the atomic bomb. However, its applications are limited by the fact that it does not acknowledge the other 2 dimensions. As far
as I know, the special theory of relativity is pretty much discredited by larson. Again, there are people at the yahoo groups connected with this information, and they are much more capable of handling this question than I. Tell you what, though. How about if I give this question to the group and see what they think? I'll let you know. Give it a few days though. Thanks for following up.
jim ruff
--- Jennifer .. wrote:
Thanks - I appreciate being referred to them. Also - thanks for the address, I checked out isus.com and it doesn't seem to exist. There is an isus.org but it seems to be some kind of business group. Thanks again!
~Milany
Date:
Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:54:42 -0700
Subject:
time as 1/t?
From:
To:
isus-discuss@yahoogroups.com
CC:
arcology2@yahoo.com
Howdy Group,
Well, here's a puzzle for all you brilliant people. In the Physics room at Yahoo Chat, someone asked me a question regarding the treatment of Time. I let her know I would ask you and give her the answer. Would that be all right? Or if you prefer, her e-mail is included, you could answer her directly.
Date:
Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Subject:
Re: time=1/t
To:
"Jennifer Giles" ..
howdy milany,
well you received two answers. one person stated that you cannot use both t and 1/t in the same equation, which he (jan) said you appeared
to be doing. the other person, bruce, gave a different explanation, and here it is:
It would seem that she has an apprehension of two things:
1) Velocity has a key role in the relationship between space and time.
Pursue this line; since the speed of light is common to all reference frames in relativity, suggest making it the "natural datum" from which to reference things, and define it as 1.0 (the parametric approach). Then you can build on the fact that anything <1.0 is sublight -- therefore mass, etc., must all be temporal displacements.
2) Intuition of "time as area": consider this, in "equivalent space" (inside the unit boundary, where 3/1, 2/1, 1/1 becomes 1/2, 1/3, ...), the equivalent of space is 1/t (since the is no space inside the unit boundary). Thus, motion, s/t in equivalent space would be (1/t) / t = 1/t^2. Time "squared" is temporal area inside unit space (which would be the "space" of the atom). See page 6 of Basic Properties of Matter,
and Chapter 8 of Nothing But Motion.
You could also suggest that if "time" were an area (hinting at coordinate time -- it could also be a volume), then "distance per temporal area", s/t^2, would be acceleration, not velocity.
Bruce
Time, Part 3
--- Jennifer .. wrote:
I was just wondering if there is ever any justification for treating time as 1/t instead of simply t, in the mathematics of physics.
My reasoning is:
1) much of relativity is based on observations dependent on non-Euclidean geometry
2) the observations hold for very large areas
3) in the case of time, they hold for very large velocities
4) time is a dimension, and therefore perhaps velocities are areas
but therein lies the problem. (area equals width X length) A=wl, but (velocity equals distance over time) v=d/t, not v=dt (distance X time); however, if time=1/t, then v=dt (velocity = distance X time). This could be interpreted as an area, because it is a measurement in one dimension multiplied by a measurement in another dimension (albeit non-spacial). If there is any merit to this reasoning, it would also imply that there is a dimension whose measurement is 1/t, and that time is possibly only a by-product of this "true" dimension. Let me know what you think.
~Milany
Date:
Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Subject:
Re: time=1/t
To:
"Jennifer" ..
Howdy Milany,
Wow you really know your stuff....actually much more than I know about classical physics. There is a website at www.reciprocalsystem.com. I think the people at that website will be able to talk to you much more intelligently than I could. This is what I know: According to Dewey B Larson, SpaceTime is actually what he calls 'Motion' and it is composed of 2 components: Space and Time, which exist in 3 dimensions each. Therefore, there are actually a total of 6 dimensions, not 4. As you probably know, there are actually 2 Theories of Relativity: The ‘General' and the 'Special'. The general theory of relativity 'works' as evidenced by the atomic bomb. However, its applications are limited by the fact that it does not acknowledge the other 2 dimensions. As far
as I know, the special theory of relativity is pretty much discredited by larson. Again, there are people at the yahoo groups connected with this information, and they are much more capable of handling this question than I. Tell you what, though. How about if I give this question to the group and see what they think? I'll let you know. Give it a few days though. Thanks for following up.
jim ruff
--- Jennifer .. wrote:
Thanks - I appreciate being referred to them. Also - thanks for the address, I checked out isus.com and it doesn't seem to exist. There is an isus.org but it seems to be some kind of business group. Thanks again!
~Milany
Date:
Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:54:42 -0700
Subject:
time as 1/t?
From:
To:
isus-discuss@yahoogroups.com
CC:
arcology2@yahoo.com
Howdy Group,
Well, here's a puzzle for all you brilliant people. In the Physics room at Yahoo Chat, someone asked me a question regarding the treatment of Time. I let her know I would ask you and give her the answer. Would that be all right? Or if you prefer, her e-mail is included, you could answer her directly.
Date:
Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Subject:
Re: time=1/t
To:
"Jennifer Giles" ..
howdy milany,
well you received two answers. one person stated that you cannot use both t and 1/t in the same equation, which he (jan) said you appeared
to be doing. the other person, bruce, gave a different explanation, and here it is:
It would seem that she has an apprehension of two things:
1) Velocity has a key role in the relationship between space and time.
Pursue this line; since the speed of light is common to all reference frames in relativity, suggest making it the "natural datum" from which to reference things, and define it as 1.0 (the parametric approach). Then you can build on the fact that anything <1.0 is sublight -- therefore mass, etc., must all be temporal displacements.
2) Intuition of "time as area": consider this, in "equivalent space" (inside the unit boundary, where 3/1, 2/1, 1/1 becomes 1/2, 1/3, ...), the equivalent of space is 1/t (since the is no space inside the unit boundary). Thus, motion, s/t in equivalent space would be (1/t) / t = 1/t^2. Time "squared" is temporal area inside unit space (which would be the "space" of the atom). See page 6 of Basic Properties of Matter,
and Chapter 8 of Nothing But Motion.
You could also suggest that if "time" were an area (hinting at coordinate time -- it could also be a volume), then "distance per temporal area", s/t^2, would be acceleration, not velocity.
Bruce
Time, Part 3
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Time, Part 1
I used to participate in message boards alot. Here's some excerpts from a poll/thread I posted a long while ago (before I was even a physics major) about time:
Message #1, From: Arcology2
Wednesday, Jan 19 2000
4:21 p.m. PST
Question:
Is time a dimension?
Result:
47 votes
63% - Yes
12% - No
23% - Only in terms of mathematical convention
Author's Comment:
By mathematical convention I mean the way a variable is added to an equation to represent any quantifiable number. To me, a real dimension is an axis (probably either infinite or circular). Real dimensions above the first three would be extremely hard, if not impossible, for us to perceive - except in a theoretical sense.
Message #14, From: Dr-sociology
To: Bradkin ( Message #13 )
Tuesday, Feb 22 2000
10:33 a.m. PST
Okay, now, if you remember, I asked you to set aside all human conventions of time. Obviously, you didn't. If you keep holding on to what we have labeled as time, such as feet/second, or miles/hour, then you can never see what I am trying to say. My point is this: an object moves from one place to another because a force acted upon it. Now that this object is in motion, it will move accordingly and affect other objects, thus sending them off on their new courses. Time is not a dimension, it is an ideal, as I said before. We use it for the primary ideal of measurement - sure, it may take four or five seconds for a baseball to leave your hand and come back to the ground, but it still comes back down. If you were to take away all concepts of time, and you threw that ball, it would still go up, because you acted upon it, it would still fall to the ground where it would come to rest, but not before it acted upon the ground and caused minor changes to the grass lawn.
In the end, I will not say that time is not essential to our lives. I am simply saying that it is more of a convenience than any form of a dimension: Humans have exceedingly short lives, when compared to how long the earth has been around, and therefore humans have had to find ways of being able to measure out the path of earth's orbit around the sun, then break that number down into fitting little blocks, which we call days, and so on. This allows humans to get the most of out their short lives.
Message #15, From: Arcology2
To: Dr-sociology ( Message #14 )
Tuesday, Feb 22 2000
12:48 p.m. PST
I think I understand what you're saying - that motion can exist independent of time. But I'm not sure I agree with it. If you define time as a method of measurement, then that is true. And yet, there is a definite sort of 'axis,' or dimension, which allows things to not happen all at once. Again, I'm referring back to time measurement (all at once) - it's very hard to talk about time, or another concrete dimension, without doing so. But, if we don't
measure it - does that mean that it suddenly becomes unmeasurable? I guess it's kinda like, "if a tree falls in the middle of the forest, and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
If you have ever read Flatland, or Sphereland, then let me explain my theory based on those analogies: I think time is not actually a dimension, but it hints at another dimension. Just as when Mr. Square began to talk about another dimension that could not be sensed, and tried to explain this, the Flatlanders assumed he was describing shading. Shading itself is not the third dimension, but it is the only conception of depth that they have.
For those of you who have not read these books, let me give a few more examples: A Flatlander is one who lives in a plane. I find it convenient to imagine their world to be a piece of paper. But you have to realize that their eyes and faces do not look up out of the paper. The extent of their field of vision is a line. Their geometry is quite different. For instance, you can draw circles (or any polygons) on a piece of paper, then mark where their eyes would be. Now, from the point of view of the shapes, they see themselves as all closed up, but you see both their insides and exterior simultaneously. Interesting concept. Those little Flatlanders would be quite puzzled, and pained, if you were to touch their internal organs.
But suppose this paper world we have constructed is merely a plane, and you can put your finger through. Imagine what the Flatlanders would see, if you were to slowly pass your finger through their world. Shapeshifting! Only you must remember that to them a 'circle' is a line. The varying widths of your finger would appear as a line that changed widths. And, remember that to them, your finger has appeared out of nowhere, and disappears without a trace.
The interesting thing about such phenomena, is not so much that there is another dimension, but that the Flatlanders are 2D-beings. They cannot perceive that which is outside their 2D world. However, that is not to say that they don't exist in 3D. Their world has to have some depth, or they would not exist (at least not to us - lol). Yet, their whole land can exist within an infinitely thin sliver of our 3rd dimension. It is also intersecting to note that a plane consists of any two geometrical dimensions, therefore the terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd (and greater) dimension are actually meaningful in only a relative sense. For instance, we could have a horizontal Flatland, composed of length and width, or we could have vertical Flatlands, composed of depth and width, or depth and height. In fact, we could even have Flatlands of diagonal dimensions. There could be an infinite number of 'planar universes,' within our own. However, unless they were parallel, they would intersect at some point (assuming we keep this simple and leave out the possibility of non-Euclidean geometry).
Likewise, our 3D world can only exist within an infinitely small sliver of time at any given point. The fact that time "passes," would suggest that our whole 3D coordinate system is moving along a 4th axis, a bit like movie film for 2D. Time itself would be a product of motion, but our ability to perceive it, more or less uniformly throughout the universe (in that as far as we know, the whole universe is experiencing time), stems from something else, IMHO.
Other physical properties, such as density, are debatably dimensions, and can be mathematically represented as such. Density is the only example I can think of, but it is really contained within our 3 dimensions, having to do with how much empty space there is left over after adding in all the necessary protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. in any given atom.
Message #16, From: Bradkin
To: Dr-sociology ( Message #14 )
Tuesday, Feb 22 2000
5:47 p.m. PST
I wish to start by saying that I enjoy debate and hope that you see this as only debate and not argument. I am searching only for truth, not to prove you wrong. The following is a quote from "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. Brian Greene is a physicist who graduated from Harvard and Oxford. He now works on super string theory. He too uses human terms in his description, but being that we are human it is difficult to describe a theory without involving us (I'm not saying that the theory doesn't exist without us, only that its description is easier with us)-- this does not invalidate a theory. "We and everything around us are aging, inevitably passing from one moment in time to the next. In fact, the mathematician Hermann Minkowski, and ultimately Einstein as well, advocated thinking about time as another dimension of the universe -- the fourth dimension -- in some ways quite similar to the three spacial dimensions in which we find ourselves immersed. Although it sounds abstract, the notion of time as a dimension is actually concrete. When we want to meet someone, we tell them where "in space" we will expect to see them -- for instance, the 9th floor of the building on the corner of 53rd Street and 7th Avenue. There are three pieces of information here (9th floor, 53rd Street, 7th Avenue) reflecting a particular location in the three spatial dimensions of the universe. Equally important, however, is our specification of when we expect to meet them -- for instance at 3 PM. This piece of information tells us where "in time" our meeting will take place. Events are therefore specified by four pieces of information: three in space and one in time. Such data, it is said, specifies the location of the event in space and in time, or in spacetime, for short. In this sense, time is another dimension." Feel free to offer rebuttal,
but I can speak on this subject no more clearly than a physicist and wouldn't try.
Message #17, From: Arcology2
To: Bradkin ( Message #16 )
Tuesday, Feb 22 2000
7:02 p.m. PST
Sounds interesting, I started reading that book the other day, but returned it as I was busy with some other reading material and didn't think I'd have time to finish it before my library loan time ran out. I'll probably just buy the 2000 edition that's coming out.
I agree with what you're saying - but I don't think you quite understood my post. Let me try putting it differently. First of all, I think that calling time the 4th dimension is only half-true, because we have multiple definitions of time (though until recent times we wouldn't have realized this). I don't know what the 4th dimension ought to be called, but "time" invokes irrelevant concepts into the primary concept. The word dimension has a similar problem.
The prefix 'hyper-' means over, or above. If you consider my earlier analogies, our 3rd dimension rises above the 2nd dimension (it also goes below, but as we know, perfect definitions are a rarity). Likewise, the 4th dimension can be imagined to rise, somehow (in the instance of Flatlanders, we say up, they think North. What we are speaking of when talking about 4th dimension is not true up, but another sort of up) above the 3rd dimension. For the sake of clarity, let us call the 4th dimension hyperspace. We, our universe, and therefore every evidence we have of our 3 dimensions, could be imagined to be moving along a 4th axis, hyperspace, yet occupying only a sliver of it at a time. All of history lies behind us in hyperspace, all of the future lies before us. The fact that time 'passes,' is the same as saying that hyperspace passes. That sliver of hyperspace that our universe occupies at any given moment passes. However, most people don't think of history, the future, and the present, as being time. To us time is not static, while an axis, relative to itself, is clearly static. What many people actually think of when we say time is the passing, not the axis. Therefore, we can have an hour of time, just as we can have a
foot of length. Often people will ask for the dimensions of an object. What they really want is the absolute/non-relative (or at least as close as we can get) measurements of an object within the dimensions it occupies. It would be absurd, or at least irrelevant to us as 3D beings, to ask what the dimensions of an object are, in terms of axis'.
We are finite in relation to time, and do not perceive its boundlessness in the way the we see everything stretching out in our 3D directions. Otherwise we would be able to 'see' the past and present all at once. Seeing the future would still be another problem as even if 'the future' stretched visible before us, the events of the future would only be in place once they had been caused- i.e. once we got there. Therefore, our verbal and conceptual definition of time is finite, but what we are referring to in the term hyperspace is not subject to the same limits. 'Time' confuses people, at least in introducing the concept, and it is easier to use a word whose definition you can control.
Message #18, From: Dr-sociology
To: Arcology2 ( Message #15 )
Tuesday, Feb 22 2000
8:40 p.m. PST
I see your point, and it is a very good analogy. I especially liked how you referenced different books - it was a nice touch. Now, I am not going to argue with you. You seem learned enough to be able to see multiple viewpoints on any given subject, so let me say this: would I be wrong to say that time is a property of our three dimensions? As you stated, for multiple happenings to occur at simultaneously, they would need to be established within certain boundaries, and perhaps time is a property afforded by the already existing dimensions of life that allows things to occur at the same moment.
Later thoughts:
The really peculiar thing to me is that time is not traversable in the same way that other dimensions are. We can’t move around at will in time, whereas we can in the other dimensions. Therefore, time is not a dimension in the same way that the others are dimensions. However, there is something of an analogy if you involve gravity. We really can’t move up and down completely at will, and if we were constantly separated from the Earth we would always be moving down, if the Earth had the mass of a black hole we would never be able to travel up no matter what kind of device we invented (although I guess one should never say never…). So, there seems to be some kind of interconnectivity between time and gravity, though the 4th dimension (not time exactly) still ought to be analogous
and interchangeable with the other 3.
Time, Part 2
Message #1, From: Arcology2
Wednesday, Jan 19 2000
4:21 p.m. PST
Question:
Is time a dimension?
Result:
47 votes
63% - Yes
12% - No
23% - Only in terms of mathematical convention
Author's Comment:
By mathematical convention I mean the way a variable is added to an equation to represent any quantifiable number. To me, a real dimension is an axis (probably either infinite or circular). Real dimensions above the first three would be extremely hard, if not impossible, for us to perceive - except in a theoretical sense.
Message #14, From: Dr-sociology
To: Bradkin ( Message #13 )
Tuesday, Feb 22 2000
10:33 a.m. PST
Okay, now, if you remember, I asked you to set aside all human conventions of time. Obviously, you didn't. If you keep holding on to what we have labeled as time, such as feet/second, or miles/hour, then you can never see what I am trying to say. My point is this: an object moves from one place to another because a force acted upon it. Now that this object is in motion, it will move accordingly and affect other objects, thus sending them off on their new courses. Time is not a dimension, it is an ideal, as I said before. We use it for the primary ideal of measurement - sure, it may take four or five seconds for a baseball to leave your hand and come back to the ground, but it still comes back down. If you were to take away all concepts of time, and you threw that ball, it would still go up, because you acted upon it, it would still fall to the ground where it would come to rest, but not before it acted upon the ground and caused minor changes to the grass lawn.
In the end, I will not say that time is not essential to our lives. I am simply saying that it is more of a convenience than any form of a dimension: Humans have exceedingly short lives, when compared to how long the earth has been around, and therefore humans have had to find ways of being able to measure out the path of earth's orbit around the sun, then break that number down into fitting little blocks, which we call days, and so on. This allows humans to get the most of out their short lives.
Message #15, From: Arcology2
To: Dr-sociology ( Message #14 )
Tuesday, Feb 22 2000
12:48 p.m. PST
I think I understand what you're saying - that motion can exist independent of time. But I'm not sure I agree with it. If you define time as a method of measurement, then that is true. And yet, there is a definite sort of 'axis,' or dimension, which allows things to not happen all at once. Again, I'm referring back to time measurement (all at once) - it's very hard to talk about time, or another concrete dimension, without doing so. But, if we don't
measure it - does that mean that it suddenly becomes unmeasurable? I guess it's kinda like, "if a tree falls in the middle of the forest, and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
If you have ever read Flatland, or Sphereland, then let me explain my theory based on those analogies: I think time is not actually a dimension, but it hints at another dimension. Just as when Mr. Square began to talk about another dimension that could not be sensed, and tried to explain this, the Flatlanders assumed he was describing shading. Shading itself is not the third dimension, but it is the only conception of depth that they have.
For those of you who have not read these books, let me give a few more examples: A Flatlander is one who lives in a plane. I find it convenient to imagine their world to be a piece of paper. But you have to realize that their eyes and faces do not look up out of the paper. The extent of their field of vision is a line. Their geometry is quite different. For instance, you can draw circles (or any polygons) on a piece of paper, then mark where their eyes would be. Now, from the point of view of the shapes, they see themselves as all closed up, but you see both their insides and exterior simultaneously. Interesting concept. Those little Flatlanders would be quite puzzled, and pained, if you were to touch their internal organs.
But suppose this paper world we have constructed is merely a plane, and you can put your finger through. Imagine what the Flatlanders would see, if you were to slowly pass your finger through their world. Shapeshifting! Only you must remember that to them a 'circle' is a line. The varying widths of your finger would appear as a line that changed widths. And, remember that to them, your finger has appeared out of nowhere, and disappears without a trace.
The interesting thing about such phenomena, is not so much that there is another dimension, but that the Flatlanders are 2D-beings. They cannot perceive that which is outside their 2D world. However, that is not to say that they don't exist in 3D. Their world has to have some depth, or they would not exist (at least not to us - lol). Yet, their whole land can exist within an infinitely thin sliver of our 3rd dimension. It is also intersecting to note that a plane consists of any two geometrical dimensions, therefore the terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd (and greater) dimension are actually meaningful in only a relative sense. For instance, we could have a horizontal Flatland, composed of length and width, or we could have vertical Flatlands, composed of depth and width, or depth and height. In fact, we could even have Flatlands of diagonal dimensions. There could be an infinite number of 'planar universes,' within our own. However, unless they were parallel, they would intersect at some point (assuming we keep this simple and leave out the possibility of non-Euclidean geometry).
Likewise, our 3D world can only exist within an infinitely small sliver of time at any given point. The fact that time "passes," would suggest that our whole 3D coordinate system is moving along a 4th axis, a bit like movie film for 2D. Time itself would be a product of motion, but our ability to perceive it, more or less uniformly throughout the universe (in that as far as we know, the whole universe is experiencing time), stems from something else, IMHO.
Other physical properties, such as density, are debatably dimensions, and can be mathematically represented as such. Density is the only example I can think of, but it is really contained within our 3 dimensions, having to do with how much empty space there is left over after adding in all the necessary protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. in any given atom.
Message #16, From: Bradkin
To: Dr-sociology ( Message #14 )
Tuesday, Feb 22 2000
5:47 p.m. PST
I wish to start by saying that I enjoy debate and hope that you see this as only debate and not argument. I am searching only for truth, not to prove you wrong. The following is a quote from "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. Brian Greene is a physicist who graduated from Harvard and Oxford. He now works on super string theory. He too uses human terms in his description, but being that we are human it is difficult to describe a theory without involving us (I'm not saying that the theory doesn't exist without us, only that its description is easier with us)-- this does not invalidate a theory. "We and everything around us are aging, inevitably passing from one moment in time to the next. In fact, the mathematician Hermann Minkowski, and ultimately Einstein as well, advocated thinking about time as another dimension of the universe -- the fourth dimension -- in some ways quite similar to the three spacial dimensions in which we find ourselves immersed. Although it sounds abstract, the notion of time as a dimension is actually concrete. When we want to meet someone, we tell them where "in space" we will expect to see them -- for instance, the 9th floor of the building on the corner of 53rd Street and 7th Avenue. There are three pieces of information here (9th floor, 53rd Street, 7th Avenue) reflecting a particular location in the three spatial dimensions of the universe. Equally important, however, is our specification of when we expect to meet them -- for instance at 3 PM. This piece of information tells us where "in time" our meeting will take place. Events are therefore specified by four pieces of information: three in space and one in time. Such data, it is said, specifies the location of the event in space and in time, or in spacetime, for short. In this sense, time is another dimension." Feel free to offer rebuttal,
but I can speak on this subject no more clearly than a physicist and wouldn't try.
Message #17, From: Arcology2
To: Bradkin ( Message #16 )
Tuesday, Feb 22 2000
7:02 p.m. PST
Sounds interesting, I started reading that book the other day, but returned it as I was busy with some other reading material and didn't think I'd have time to finish it before my library loan time ran out. I'll probably just buy the 2000 edition that's coming out.
I agree with what you're saying - but I don't think you quite understood my post. Let me try putting it differently. First of all, I think that calling time the 4th dimension is only half-true, because we have multiple definitions of time (though until recent times we wouldn't have realized this). I don't know what the 4th dimension ought to be called, but "time" invokes irrelevant concepts into the primary concept. The word dimension has a similar problem.
The prefix 'hyper-' means over, or above. If you consider my earlier analogies, our 3rd dimension rises above the 2nd dimension (it also goes below, but as we know, perfect definitions are a rarity). Likewise, the 4th dimension can be imagined to rise, somehow (in the instance of Flatlanders, we say up, they think North. What we are speaking of when talking about 4th dimension is not true up, but another sort of up) above the 3rd dimension. For the sake of clarity, let us call the 4th dimension hyperspace. We, our universe, and therefore every evidence we have of our 3 dimensions, could be imagined to be moving along a 4th axis, hyperspace, yet occupying only a sliver of it at a time. All of history lies behind us in hyperspace, all of the future lies before us. The fact that time 'passes,' is the same as saying that hyperspace passes. That sliver of hyperspace that our universe occupies at any given moment passes. However, most people don't think of history, the future, and the present, as being time. To us time is not static, while an axis, relative to itself, is clearly static. What many people actually think of when we say time is the passing, not the axis. Therefore, we can have an hour of time, just as we can have a
foot of length. Often people will ask for the dimensions of an object. What they really want is the absolute/non-relative (or at least as close as we can get) measurements of an object within the dimensions it occupies. It would be absurd, or at least irrelevant to us as 3D beings, to ask what the dimensions of an object are, in terms of axis'.
We are finite in relation to time, and do not perceive its boundlessness in the way the we see everything stretching out in our 3D directions. Otherwise we would be able to 'see' the past and present all at once. Seeing the future would still be another problem as even if 'the future' stretched visible before us, the events of the future would only be in place once they had been caused- i.e. once we got there. Therefore, our verbal and conceptual definition of time is finite, but what we are referring to in the term hyperspace is not subject to the same limits. 'Time' confuses people, at least in introducing the concept, and it is easier to use a word whose definition you can control.
Message #18, From: Dr-sociology
To: Arcology2 ( Message #15 )
Tuesday, Feb 22 2000
8:40 p.m. PST
I see your point, and it is a very good analogy. I especially liked how you referenced different books - it was a nice touch. Now, I am not going to argue with you. You seem learned enough to be able to see multiple viewpoints on any given subject, so let me say this: would I be wrong to say that time is a property of our three dimensions? As you stated, for multiple happenings to occur at simultaneously, they would need to be established within certain boundaries, and perhaps time is a property afforded by the already existing dimensions of life that allows things to occur at the same moment.
Later thoughts:
The really peculiar thing to me is that time is not traversable in the same way that other dimensions are. We can’t move around at will in time, whereas we can in the other dimensions. Therefore, time is not a dimension in the same way that the others are dimensions. However, there is something of an analogy if you involve gravity. We really can’t move up and down completely at will, and if we were constantly separated from the Earth we would always be moving down, if the Earth had the mass of a black hole we would never be able to travel up no matter what kind of device we invented (although I guess one should never say never…). So, there seems to be some kind of interconnectivity between time and gravity, though the 4th dimension (not time exactly) still ought to be analogous
and interchangeable with the other 3.
Time, Part 2
Saturday, October 3, 2009
MacArthur Park
Some people think this is a drug song. Some people think it's a love song. Some people think it's about dinosaurs. I prefer to think of it as a love song (or rather, a song about love lost). Still, with the original (non-dinosaur) words, it doesn't really make complete sense either way (which, if it's a drug song, it doesn't really have to make sense); but she has a lovely voice, and the weirdness has a certain beauty, so I like the song :D. I don't particularly care for the disco segues, which musically suggests more to me that it's a drug song. Also "sweet green icing flowing down" suggests hallucinations, I mean, who bakes a cake with green icing??? Well, the lady who made the armadillo groom's cake in Steel Magnolias would probably do it, but who else??? Some people think the words are "sweet CREAM icing" - but that's not the majority opinion. The first Donna Summers song that I learned was "She Works Hard for the Money," which also tends to have a bad reputation as being about "a woman of ill repute." However, in that case, the lyrics really don't support that idea since it says "9am on the hour hand" and "she'll never sell out/she never will/ not for a dollar bill." Poor Donna Summer. Always misunderstood. Of course, being famous for a song called "Bad Girls" probably doesn't help either (but I don't really like that one, and don't know the words either). "Heaven Knows" is another one I do like. Anyway, here's MacArthur park (which wasn't even written by Donna Summer):
Spring was never waiting for us till
it ran one step ahead
as we followed in the dance.
Between the parted pages
we were pressed,
in love's hot, fevered iron
like a striped pair of pants.
Mac Arthur's Park is melting in the dark
all the sweet green icing flowing down
someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'cause it took so long to bake it
and I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, nooo!
I recall the yellow cotton dress
foaming like a wave
on the ground beneath your knees
birds like tender babies in your hands
and the old men playing
Chinese checkers
by the trees
Mac Arthur Park's is melting in the dark
all the sweet green icing flowing down
someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'cause it took so long to bake it
and I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, nooo!
There'll be another song for me
and I will sing it
there'll be another dream for me
someone will bring it
I will drink the wine while it is warn
and never let you catch me
looking at the sun, oh yeah
and after all the loves of my life
after all loves in my life
you'll be the one
I will take my life into my hands
and I will use it
I will win the worship in their eyes
and I will lose it
I will have the things that I desire
and my passion flow
like rivers through the sky
oh and after all the loves in my life
after all the loves in my life
you'll still be the one
and I'll ask myself why.
Mac Arthur's Park is melting in the dark
all the sweet green icing flowing down
someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'cause it took so long to bake it
and I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, nooo!
Spring was never waiting for us till
it ran one step ahead
as we followed in the dance.
Between the parted pages
we were pressed,
in love's hot, fevered iron
like a striped pair of pants.
Mac Arthur's Park is melting in the dark
all the sweet green icing flowing down
someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'cause it took so long to bake it
and I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, nooo!
I recall the yellow cotton dress
foaming like a wave
on the ground beneath your knees
birds like tender babies in your hands
and the old men playing
Chinese checkers
by the trees
Mac Arthur Park's is melting in the dark
all the sweet green icing flowing down
someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'cause it took so long to bake it
and I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, nooo!
There'll be another song for me
and I will sing it
there'll be another dream for me
someone will bring it
I will drink the wine while it is warn
and never let you catch me
looking at the sun, oh yeah
and after all the loves of my life
after all loves in my life
you'll be the one
I will take my life into my hands
and I will use it
I will win the worship in their eyes
and I will lose it
I will have the things that I desire
and my passion flow
like rivers through the sky
oh and after all the loves in my life
after all the loves in my life
you'll still be the one
and I'll ask myself why.
Mac Arthur's Park is melting in the dark
all the sweet green icing flowing down
someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'cause it took so long to bake it
and I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, nooo!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Love Potion No. 9
Here's a song for today:
Love Potion Number Nine
The Clovers, The Searchers
I took my troubles down to Madame Rue
You know that gypsy with the gold-capped tooth
She's got a pad down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine
Sellin' little bottles of Love Potion Number Nine
You know that gypsy with the gold-capped tooth
She's got a pad down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine
Sellin' little bottles of Love Potion Number Nine
I told her that I was a flop with chics
I've been this way since 1956
She looked at my palm and she made a magic sign
She said "What you need is Love Potion Number Nine"
I've been this way since 1956
She looked at my palm and she made a magic sign
She said "What you need is Love Potion Number Nine"
She bent down and turned around and gave me a wink
She said "I'm gonna make it up right here in the sink"
It smelled like turpentine, it looked like Indian ink
I held my nose, I closed my eyes, I took a drink
She said "I'm gonna make it up right here in the sink"
It smelled like turpentine, it looked like Indian ink
I held my nose, I closed my eyes, I took a drink
I didn't know if it was day or night
I started kissin' everything in sight
But when I kissed a cop down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine
He broke my little bottle of Love Potion Number Nine
I started kissin' everything in sight
But when I kissed a cop down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine
He broke my little bottle of Love Potion Number Nine
------ guitar solo ------
I held my nose, I closed my eyes, I took a drink
I didn't know if it was day or night
I started kissin' everything in sight
But when I kissed a cop down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine
He broke my little bottle of Love Potion Number Nine
Love Potion Number Nine
Love Potion Number Nine
Love Potion Number Nine
I started kissin' everything in sight
But when I kissed a cop down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine
He broke my little bottle of Love Potion Number Nine
Love Potion Number Nine
Love Potion Number Nine
Love Potion Number Nine
But, in the end, Rachel stole the day. By making her own YouTube channel. I feel so left out. And it's all my fault. I'm the only Giles kid without his/her own YouTube performances. Which I guess makes sense. 'Cause I'm not even a Giles anymore. *sniff sniff*
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Old Sample Text
Again, from my old website:
...sample text, sample text...oh, I had the strangest conversation with my sister the other day. We were discussing the expression "I'd lose my head if it weren't attached to my shoulders," because really, who wouldn't? And I was thinking, maybe I wouldn't. Afterall, my braid would make a pretty convenient handle - then I got the weirdest picture in my head, you know like those old monks who swing incense lanterns as they go? Well I was imagining this headless me walking along in monastic garb swinging my head by my braid...how's that for sample text?
...sample text, sample text...oh, I had the strangest conversation with my sister the other day. We were discussing the expression "I'd lose my head if it weren't attached to my shoulders," because really, who wouldn't? And I was thinking, maybe I wouldn't. Afterall, my braid would make a pretty convenient handle - then I got the weirdest picture in my head, you know like those old monks who swing incense lanterns as they go? Well I was imagining this headless me walking along in monastic garb swinging my head by my braid...how's that for sample text?
...to test scrolling capabilities I need yet MORE sample text...hmmm...oh, the phrase "certain unalienable rights" comes from The Declaration of Independence, at least the version found in a little pamphlet called something like The American Citizen's Pocket Handbook, also in both text and picture versions in the World Book. That is also how most people will discuss it. However, I used to always quote an online version I found and it said "inalienable rights." Now get this: I looked up both "unalienable" and "inalienable" in 3 different dictionaries. One had both with independent definitions. One had both but "unalienable" tells you to see "inalienable." One had only "inalienable," and in all cases "inalienable" is the one that uses rights as the example. How weird is that?
While on the topic of things that don't make sense, let me just briefly mention significant figures. According the rules for sigfigs outlined in my HS Chemistry text, which covers more conditions than other references I've seen, there is an inherent incosistency. Basically, if you multiply a number such as 5.11 by exactly 2, you assume 3 sigfigs and your answer is 10.2. However, if you add this number to itself using the column method you can see that numbers are allowed to accumulate on the left thereby giving a different answer:
5.11Because multiplication is really just exalted addition, this shouldn't happen. Although this seems trivial, what if instead of multiplying by 2 you were multiplying by 1000? Ok - should see some scrolling now... Come to think of it, I coulda just resized the window...*blush*!
+5.11
_____
10.22
Monday, August 24, 2009
Personal Anecdotes
I'm considering taking down my website, so I'm just gonna start consolidating here:
DON'T IGNORE THE SOUNDTRACK
When I saw Dances with Wolves my little sister was watching too. At the part where he first sees the wolf I thought (out loud) the guy's all alone, that wolf is dangerous, there could be more of them, maybe he's even the leader of a pack, they'll attack him in his sleep...shoot the darn thing already!...do you wanna be eaten?...just shoot it!...why doesn't he shoot it? My sister turns to me with a pleading look of sympathy for the wolf, and says, "Because there's soft music playing."
You should yell "fire" instead of "help," 'cuz you're more likely to get help.
If you're not too close to somebody and they pull a gun on you, run. Even trained police officers have a very low accuracy rate with moving targets, and the hits are hardly ever in vital spots.
If someone is chasing you, the best thing to do is get under a car and hold onto whatever you can, it's almost impossible to get somebody out from underneath a car (growing up with cats I know this is true).
Short of learning martial arts, the best thing to know about fighting is to go for the eyes.
When parking, park so that you won't have to back out, should you need to get out in a hurry you then can.
Always lock your car, and bend the front seat forward because the best place to hide in a car is in the back seat. If the seat is pushed back you'll know someone has been in there.
Et cetra
DON'T IGNORE THE SOUNDTRACK
When I saw Dances with Wolves my little sister was watching too. At the part where he first sees the wolf I thought (out loud) the guy's all alone, that wolf is dangerous, there could be more of them, maybe he's even the leader of a pack, they'll attack him in his sleep...shoot the darn thing already!...do you wanna be eaten?...just shoot it!...why doesn't he shoot it? My sister turns to me with a pleading look of sympathy for the wolf, and says, "Because there's soft music playing."
'G' IS FOR GIRLS DON'T ***
There's a really stupid movie called 102 Dalmations, and years ago my family rented it. Cruella DeVil has gone through some kind of therapy in prison, and now she loves dogs and is being let out on parole. The leading lady is her parole officer, and has some dalmations. Well, unbeknownst to Pavlov-or whoever orchestrated her rehabilitation-this spell of classical conditioning can be broken by really loud bell ringing. Cruella is exposed to such cacaphony, and reverts to her old self. Meanwhile, accross town is a guy who owns an animal shelter, and is struggling to keep afloat. Actually maybe it's just a dog shelter, he only has dogs...and a parrot that THINKS it's a dog - but ANYWAY, there is a scene where the guy eats dog food to entertain the 'dogs.' This guy is the leading man. To make a long story short, the leading man and lady go out to dinner in a slightly cute scene where the dogs stay at home watching the date scene from Lady and the Tramp and shots of the the guy and girl's almost identical evening are interspliced. So now to the real joke - my little brother (pretty young at the time...10 I think?) came up to me and just asked out of the blue, "Jennifer, I don't get it. That guy is practically living on dog food, so where does he get the money to take the girl out to a nice spaghetti retaurant?" I was thinking, it's a stupid Disney sequel movie, you're not supposed to analyze it like this - but tried to think of something to pacify his youthful inquisitiveness. Finally I said, "Maybe the girl paid." His expression of perplexity quickly changed to one of horror. Sounding guilty for even hearing me say this, he whispered a grave admonition, "Jennifer, the girl would not pay in a G movie."
There's a really stupid movie called 102 Dalmations, and years ago my family rented it. Cruella DeVil has gone through some kind of therapy in prison, and now she loves dogs and is being let out on parole. The leading lady is her parole officer, and has some dalmations. Well, unbeknownst to Pavlov-or whoever orchestrated her rehabilitation-this spell of classical conditioning can be broken by really loud bell ringing. Cruella is exposed to such cacaphony, and reverts to her old self. Meanwhile, accross town is a guy who owns an animal shelter, and is struggling to keep afloat. Actually maybe it's just a dog shelter, he only has dogs...and a parrot that THINKS it's a dog - but ANYWAY, there is a scene where the guy eats dog food to entertain the 'dogs.' This guy is the leading man. To make a long story short, the leading man and lady go out to dinner in a slightly cute scene where the dogs stay at home watching the date scene from Lady and the Tramp and shots of the the guy and girl's almost identical evening are interspliced. So now to the real joke - my little brother (pretty young at the time...10 I think?) came up to me and just asked out of the blue, "Jennifer, I don't get it. That guy is practically living on dog food, so where does he get the money to take the girl out to a nice spaghetti retaurant?" I was thinking, it's a stupid Disney sequel movie, you're not supposed to analyze it like this - but tried to think of something to pacify his youthful inquisitiveness. Finally I said, "Maybe the girl paid." His expression of perplexity quickly changed to one of horror. Sounding guilty for even hearing me say this, he whispered a grave admonition, "Jennifer, the girl would not pay in a G movie."
BRAIN FREEZE
My sister was trying to explain a haircut to me, and was having trouble putting it into words. Finally she thought of a way to make me understand, brightened, and said, "Oh! You know - like the girl in Josie and the Pussycats!!! The lead singer, what was her name?...um...um...um...it's on the tip of my tongue, I'll think of it...oh yeah! JOSIE!!!!! Yeah, that was it."
My sister was trying to explain a haircut to me, and was having trouble putting it into words. Finally she thought of a way to make me understand, brightened, and said, "Oh! You know - like the girl in Josie and the Pussycats!!! The lead singer, what was her name?...um...um...um...it's on the tip of my tongue, I'll think of it...oh yeah! JOSIE!!!!! Yeah, that was it."
DRIVING RELATED PARANOIA
I constantly get teased for stuff related to driving. I was one of those atypical teenagers who didn't want to drive. My older brother was like that too, but because he didn't want to be saddled with chauffering siblings. I was just plain scared - not exactly of dying or being maimed, but more of being pulled over, of causing a wreck, forgetting to get gas and feeling stupid for being on the side of the road, or just generally getting into trouble unintentionally. I was terrified of the responsibility. Finally, when I started taking concurrent courses at Oral Roberts (all the way across town from where we lived), my mom insisted that I get my driver's license. I did fine on the written exam. I only missed one question - something about the maximum sentence for drug usage - like that has anything to do with driving...But I was so nervous during the driving exam that I made too many mistakes. The second time through, the officer was a nice old grandfatherly type, very reassuring, and I passed.
I constantly get teased for stuff related to driving. I was one of those atypical teenagers who didn't want to drive. My older brother was like that too, but because he didn't want to be saddled with chauffering siblings. I was just plain scared - not exactly of dying or being maimed, but more of being pulled over, of causing a wreck, forgetting to get gas and feeling stupid for being on the side of the road, or just generally getting into trouble unintentionally. I was terrified of the responsibility. Finally, when I started taking concurrent courses at Oral Roberts (all the way across town from where we lived), my mom insisted that I get my driver's license. I did fine on the written exam. I only missed one question - something about the maximum sentence for drug usage - like that has anything to do with driving...But I was so nervous during the driving exam that I made too many mistakes. The second time through, the officer was a nice old grandfatherly type, very reassuring, and I passed.
Because I don't driving standard, my parents have always thought I should learn, and every now and again undertake to teach me - but whatever I learn I quickly forget, and I'm not sure that I forget on accident. Anyway, once my mom and younger siblings and I were taking a long trip to visit my grandparents. We were at a gas station out in rural Oklahoma, and my mom decided this would be a good time for us to switch so that I could practice. Of course I didn't want to, but an arguer I'm not, so I did my best to get the right movement ratio going between gas and clutch. I failed miserably. The entire car had an epileptic episode then died. Some man filling his tank was watching, and I guess he was Catholic 'cuz he crossed himself. Everybody started laughing. I wished I had had the epileptic seizure instead. Actually - that'd be awesome. People like that get their driver's licenses revoked!
My first (and so far only) wreck occurred on Halloween night of 2000. It was after dark, there was alot of traffic due to Halloween, and I was on a highway undergoing construction. Suddenly a traffic jam sprung up in front of me. I hit the brakes and I think they locked. If I'd had an instinct to pump them or go for the emergency brake maybe I could've stopped in time. I think I tried to steer towards the shoulder, but we were almost at bridge and there was a bit of an embankment, so I don't think I really went that direction - or maybe my steering locked too. I don't know. Maybe if I'd been paying better attention I could've stopped in time. I don't know. The point is I didn't, and slammed into the van full of kids in front of me. The driver got out and there was blood streaming down his face. I almost had a heart-attack. After a few moments I realized that the blood was his costume. If you have any imagination then surely you understand that my relief can't be verbalized. Fortunately, my braking had accomplished something, and the impact was actually pretty mild and nobody got hurt. My car didn't even show any damage - though the van's bumper was dented - but that might've been there before. I remember thinking that their bumper looked higher than the nose of my car - and a van vs. a Honda Civic? Mine should've shown something.
When I moved out to Oklahoma State, even though I was < 100 miles from home and my grandparents lived in Stillwater, I think my parents worried about me. My older brother had gone to Oral Roberts and so this was really the farthest away that any child had moved from them for a significant amount of time. Every few weeks I would get a story from them like: a girl at a gas station went into pay, it was broad daylight, when she came back out a man told her not to get into her car 'cuz he thought he saw someone get in. They called the police. Sure enough, there was a guy in there who was supposed to rape and kill a girl to enter his gang. Another rumored gang membership activitiy was that a prospective member drives around at night with his lights off, the first one to flick their lights at him he is supposed to shoot. Also, on the weekends I often watched crime documentaries, because I really like mysteries, detective stories, and stuff like that. But, it probably heightened my sense of fear of assault. Then too, living on campus there was often news of some girl getting raped at a frat party, or about video cameras in the showers, and all kinds of stuff like that. Once my parents forwarded an e-mail to me about some special forces guy who gave presentations to womens groups on how to avoid victimization. For instance:
You should yell "fire" instead of "help," 'cuz you're more likely to get help.If you're not too close to somebody and they pull a gun on you, run. Even trained police officers have a very low accuracy rate with moving targets, and the hits are hardly ever in vital spots.If someone is chasing you, the best thing to do is get under a car and hold onto whatever you can, it's almost impossible to get somebody out from underneath a car (growing up with cats I know this is true).Short of learning martial arts, the best thing to know about fighting is to go for the eyes.When parking, park so that you won't have to back out, should you need to get out in a hurry you then can.Always lock your car, and bend the front seat forward because the best place to hide in a car is in the back seat. If the seat is pushed back you'll know someone has been in there.Et cetra I was pretty faithful about following the car related suggestions. When I moved back home, my sister and I started taking some sewing lessons together. They were in the evenings and so whenever we would go out to the car it would be dark and of course I had locked the doors and put the seat forward. Coming back I would always creep up to the window rather stealthily and look inside to make sure the seat was positioned where it should be and no one was inside, then announce something like, "Ok. No robbers." She gave me a really hard time about all this, and would never cooperate by locking her own door either. One night I had just finished declaring the coast clear, and we were just getting into the car when my sister suddenly shouted, "Jennifer! There's a bloody knife on the dashboard!" I screamed and practically fell out of the car onto the pavement before I realized she was kidding. She of course enjoyed quite a laugh at my expense. The sad thing is that she repeated this every week or so, and it still had the same effect. One night, in a more convincing voice than ever, she said, "Jennifer! There's a dirty sock on the dashboard!" I jumped out of my skin and she's never gonna let me forget it. But I got her back *evil grin*
When we moved to Colorado, we took two cars. I was following my parents, and it was just me and my sister in my car, listening to the radio. My parents weren't always good at remembering that I was following, and would often speed a bit, or make a quick lane shift and lose me. There's more coming on this later, but I'm also a terrible navigator, so getting lost in a foreign state was always weighing in the back of my mind. Most of the highway driving I'd done in Oklahoma was with speed limits of 65. The limit here was 75, I'd been driving for several hours already, curvy terrain was new to me, it was dark and the oncoming headlights were really starting to irritate, and there was a thunderstorm in progress. Needless to say I was terrified. My sister is often with me when I drive, and she can tell you that incidents that provoke road rage in most people simply make me start chanting "I hate driving. I hate driving. I hate..." That happens if I simply get cut off. This night I was freaking out. I was probably hyperventilating at that point. Suddenly a commercial came on and said, "Do you have anxiety about travel?" We both cracked up. The lady in the commercial then went on to ask other more specific questions, and my answer to about 3/4 of them was "yes." It was the perfect tension breaker!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
My Review of The Count of Monte Cristo
Again, really just an old HSA discussion. I was part of another HSA group read, led by someone else, where they decided to read Crime and Punishment based on a poll vote. I wasn't really interested in Crime and Punishment, but wanted to do a group read and have discussions. By the end, I thought it was a really depressing book, and I was the only one who finished it so nobody else had any discussion ideas :P So, this time I decided to take the helm, and not poll anybody about it! At the worst, I'd be reading a book I wanted to read anyway, and maybe just discussing it with those who had already read it:
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 06, 2007
The group read will begin next Monday (July 9th). Everyone is welcome to join and discuss. If you don't have the book and can't get it quickly, there is an online version available here:
http://www.online-literature.com/dumas/cristo/1/
I am planning to read about one chapter per day on business days (subject to change). If you read faster or slower, that is fine, just try not to post spoilers before they come up in discussion.
Finnbar
Fri Jul 06, 2007
hmm, the Count, so tortured! so afflicted! maybe I'll reread it with ya'll..
Heather Belle OFC
Sat Jul 07, 2007
I've already read it so I'll just lurk and see what y'all say about it. :D Is that permitted?
Elisabeth Starr
Sat Jul 07, 2007
I haven't read it yet, but have intended to for a while now :D So I'll join you.
Carolyn
Sat Jul 07, 2007
Heather wrote:
I've already read it so I'll just lurk and see what y'all say about it. :D Is that permitted?
Me too. It's been awhile but I seem to remember liking it overall. Because... never mind. I shan't spill anything and I shan't display a potentially faulty memory. ;)
Charlyn
Sat Jul 07, 2007
I might have to start a little late. I am going to a camp tomorrow and I..m not sure I will have time to read. But I..m a fast reader and will be able to catch up quickly Smile
Angie I.
Sun Jul 08, 2007
That's one of my favorite books! I'm in! :D
Patrick Eklektos
Sun Jul 08, 2007
I have already read the book and I was mightily pleased with it. I think I shall do so again. Count me in (there is NO pun here). A chapter-a-day eh? That is easy. I look forward to this post tomorrow! Mr. Green
Sola Deo Gloria
Maece aka Jennifer (Online)
Mon Jul 09, 2007
Lurking is definitely permitted! We may speed up the pace if it seems everyone wants to go faster.
Patrick Eklektos
Mon Jul 09, 2007
I finished my quota of the day! Mr. Green
I would like to observe Dumas' painting of his characters. That is, I would like to take early note of the fact that Dantes is painted as morally good in his conduct of his duties on ship and in his amiable respect for his father. It is interesting to note that, while Dantes did not like Danglars, he did not slight his work. Whereas, the reverse is true of Danglars.
SDG
Maece aka Jennifer
Mon Jul 09, 2007
Yeah - my edition (1936!) has an introduction that includes the following:
Quote:
...the moment a character appears, the reader knows at once whether it is a hero or a villain. If a villain, he "darts an oblique glance, sparkling with hatred"; if a hero he is"tall, sinewy, with a fine pair of dark eyes and and an air of composure and of resolve."
...in the first chapter I recognized this tendency. From what I have heard of Dumas, he is overly simple. In fact, most of his books are written by a group of authors rather than himself alone, and his critics referred to him as "Alexandre Dumas and Company, Fiction Factory." However, his books (particularly The Count) have withstood the test of time and become classics. Just shows what critics know ;)
Also in an insert that came with the book, mention is made of a French lit. professor who declared that there are only 36 plots. Of those, The Count is now considered the archetypal revenge plot. So, while fiction for it's own sake may be little more than fun, it is interesting to me to note that certain works of fiction have greatly impacted other works of literature, and the whole of knowledge in general. I remember reading a short abridged version of The Count when I was very young (complete with many pictures), and loving it. I am glad now to go back and read the whole which I have missed until now.
Daniel J. Mount OFC
Mon Jul 09, 2007
I'll have to catch up with this on Thursday, since I'm busy getting ready to fly out to Atlanta (through Wednesday night). Sorry for the delay on my end! I look forward to catching up with you all then. :)
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Jul 10, 2007
I read the 2nd chapter but don't really have any new comments at this point.
Antonia I. SA 1030
Fri Jul 13, 2007
I'm sorry that I haven't been on here, but we've had a revival this week, and I just haven't had any time to read. I'll get caught up over the weekend. Where are we at? Chapter 5, isn't it?
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 13, 2007
Yup. It's been a bit hard to come up with discussion topics yet...
Angie I.
Fri Jul 13, 2007
It seems I have less time on my hands than I thought so I guess you will have to count me back out. Sorry about that. :(
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 13, 2007
That's ok - it will probably take us around a month to finish, so you can always jump back in later ;)
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Jul 17, 2007
OK - just finished chapter 7. If you are not caught up (and have never read the book), be forewarned of spoilers.
Anyway, characters I found interesting:
1. Caderousse. He is basically a good guy, but ends up doing the wrong thing out of fear and weakness of character. However, it was weakness of character that gave him the opportunity to do good in the first place. If he had not been drunk, Danglars and Ferdinand would not have dared to create their plans in front of him. Yet, if he had a stronger character, he would not have been worried about being associated with a Bonapartist in order to expose trickery against a friend and a good man.
2. Villefort. Another interesting character. Likable, but shallow. I like the sincere description of shallow joy. First is a list of all that Villefort stands to gain from marrying Renee, then the following description "All the elements combined constituted for Villefort a ravishing sum of happiness; so that when with an inward view he contemplated steadily his interior life, it was as if he looked at spots on the sun." HAHAHA! Not quite sarcastic but almost.
Heather Brooke
Tue Jul 17, 2007
Quote:
Quote:
...the moment a character appears, the reader knows at once whether it is a hero or a villain. If a villain, he "darts an oblique glance, sparkling with hatred"; if a hero he is"tall, sinewy, with a fine pair of dark eyes and and an air of composure and of resolve."
...in the first chapter I recognized this tendency. From what I have heard of Dumas, he is overly simple. In fact, most of his books are written by a group of authors rather than himself alone, and his critics referred to him as "Alexandre Dumas and Company, Fiction Factory." However, his books (particularly The Count) have withstood the test of time and become classics. Just shows what critics know Wink
I totally have to agree with you! I found myself already picking out which characters that I will love throughout the book, and those that I will dread!
Maece aka Jennifer
Thanks to another thread, I just discovered that many of the chapters are available in audio format for free.
http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1005
Antonia I. SA 1030
Tue Jul 17, 2007
This is terrible! I want to join in this discussion, but I already know everything that is going to happen, and I'm afraid it will color all my remarks. I would really hate to spoil the story for all those who haven't ever read this before, so I guess I'll just hang back and wait for a safe opening!
Caderousse was definitely weak, and I always felt sorry for him. He was just so lame! Villefort... [great, here is where I have to leave off so not as to give anything away]. Danglars was totally rotten, and Fernand really needed to get hold of himself!
Mr. Green[/i]
Patrick Eklektos
Thu Jul 19, 2007
Sorry I have not been with you all of late, but I have to punch out as I am trading my afternoon Classics for Theology. However, I am still reading Classics in the evening, but, as that is already taken by War and Peace, it does not matter in the slightest. Sorry about that.
SDG
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 20, 2007
Chapter 10:
The king is funny - he doesn't quite seem kingly enough though. I liked the description:
Quote:
...with the self-satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own while he is but commenting upon the idea of another...
Who would ever say something like that today? He says it as if it is common knowledge that an original idea is something VERY separate from a commentary. I agree that it is separate, but it's certainly not a distinction that people seem to make very often today.
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 27, 2007
I just finished Chapter 17 - am I getting ahead? I skipped a few days then made them up all at once and I think I may have miscounted how many. Anyway, The Abbe is cool - he reminds me of Robinson Crusoe.
I thought that it was interesting that Dantes confided to Fria that he would not have retained Danglars if the choice were up to him, as he had found inaccuracies in his work. Yet, he never told this information to his own employer. Hmmm.
BTW - how many people are still in this thing? We originally had 16 (anonymous) votes for The Count, and two have since bowed out, and three (including myself) have posted comments. Unless I missed something somewhere...
Loshie
Sat Jul 28, 2007
oh! Tell me where you are and I may try and read it again with y'all.
I read it a few months back, and I have to say it knocked Jane Eyre off for Favorite Old Novel. =P
Maece aka Jennifer
Mon Jul 30, 2007
I guess Chapter 18 as of now - though I think I'm about 2 chapters ahead of where I originally set the pace. Tomorrow I may be further ahead - it's kinda hard to put down :D
Lord Jarodicus
Mon Jul 30, 2007
I randomly grabbed the book at the library, and I'm about half-way finished. Maybe a little more. Very Happy I appreciate a book that I can attack for days on end and still not be done with
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Jul 31, 2007
OK - I just finished Chapter 21, so if any of you are not there yet, beware spoilers!
One thing that is just a little annoying is that descriptions/illustrations have anticipatory details, so that you know what's going to happen long before it actually does. For instance, the picture on the page where he was thrown into the sea told me what was going to happen before he even was carried outside... there were little clues in the narrative all along and yet he was SURPRISED when he wasn't buried (probably because the "grave diggers" were referred to as such). Or, so much attention had previously been drawn to the fact that he kept the knife with him inside the bag - it's not like I didn't know how he would escape *Rolling Eyes* Or the old man telling him about the treasure - the old man had described the treasure to so many other's before, and I certainly never believed that he was mad, it's not like you couldn't see it coming...
And yet, I think that this "I know what's going to happen" actually gets me more interested than if I had no clue. It's kinda like when you're a kid on vacation and you keep asking your parents "Are we there yet?" I KNOW what's coming, I just don't know when, and so I get impatient, and I read more energetically (if that makes sense - reading energetically), looking for the closure that I anticipate. Hmmm...
Daniel J. Mount OFC
Wed Aug 01, 2007
I, too, overestimated the time I had available. But if I can spare the time, I'll catch up with you and start commenting!
Maece aka Jennifer
Thu Aug 02, 2007
Chapter 29: This guy is starting to remind me of Ghost Rider...
Lord Jarodicus
Fri Aug 03, 2007
Okay, an awesome quote from chapter 55:
"But really, my dear count, we are talking as much of women as they do of us; it is unpardonable!"
Mr. Green
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:08
Haha - someone sounds a bit arrogant in the battle of the sexes. Anyway, I'm only through chapter 38, so I guess I'll find out who/if/why about the arrogance later. Anyway, I liked the character Cocles, M. Morrel's loyal, senior accountant. He thought of life as a ledger. Moreover, the idea that everything will add up was like a moral law of the universe for him. If something didn't add up, it was if you had violated gravity. Particularly, if a solid business could not pay, or if a shaky one could, it was like violating the law of gravity. If it happened, he felt he might just as well be insane. I identify with that guy.
Maece aka Jennifer
Thu Aug 23, 2007
Maece wrote:
That's ok - it will probably take us around a month to finish, so you can always jump back in later ;)
When I wrote that, I didn't realize that there were four volumes, and that the thirty chapters listed in the index only represented the first. So, it WILL take over a month. Now that I've been reading more, hopefully it won't take four months.
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Aug 24, 2007
I just finished Chapter 50.
I find it very interesting that this story is written at the time of The Enlightenment, The French Revolution, and generally speaking, the dawn of democracy and modern civilization. Yet, the Count seems to be a contrasting personification of vigilante justice, and even cruelty at times.
Think of his slave Ali - the Count felt no duty to save this man's life. In fact, he said that he deliberately waited until the man's tongue has been cut out before he did save him. He seems to have done this simply because it was a whim of his to own a mute slave. He once told a servant of his that Ali was more like a dog than a servant, and were Ali were to fail in his duties, the Count would kill him. His lover (if that is what she truly is - it is hard to say at this point) is also a slave.
He does not believe in philanthropy in general, and in every case where he seems to be practicing it he has a good and selfish reason (for this I admire him, I really believe that any philanthropist who belies himself to be a true philanthropist is deceiving himself, and is therefore dangerous).
The count seems to really believe in physiognomy, and employs it immediately to ascertain the character of everyone he meets. Even if phrenology was popular at the time, for me this seems too naive a belief for one such as the count :-/
I realize that the count did not make friends with Albert and Franz simply from coincidence. Yet, his interest (particularly in Albert) dragged on so long without the slightest hint why Albert was the chosen one??? It was nice to see that finally resolved. Albert is basically the son he would have had by Mercedes, had misfortune not befallen them both. Yet, Albert is also Fernand's son... so if the count loves Albert as a son, it seems in stark contradiction to the general trend of the story that sons are like their fathers. Maximillian, for instance, or either of the boys begotten by Villefort.
It was interesting to see the reference to Rousseau's Emile'! Rousseau WAS French, and from what I've read that book was considered quite an authority on child rearing at the time. I have actually read that book, and it is interesting, though I would not advise taking too much parenting advise from an absentee father of five...
Lord Jarodicus
Thu Aug 30, 2007
I finished weeks ago. :P I really respect a book I can attack for weeks on end and still not finish. I finally put in a few late-nighters and got it done.
Maece aka Jennifer
Enjoy it while you can. It's hard to pull late nighters once you get married.
Anyway, I just finished Chapter 73. I never expected the Count to work as a matchmaker... or un-matchmaker as the case may be. Though, I do think it's quite unfair to be pairing Bendetto with Ms. Eugenie Danglars. She hasn't done anything wrong except to be in love with music rather than a man (and that could change if she met the right guy...), to be independent and strong rather than traditionally feminine, etc. I'm not saying that Albert ought to love her (she doesn't love him either, for that matter), but why do they have to try to set her up with BENDETTO?? I mean, he basically tortured his adopted mom to death! What did she do to deserve him? ...besides, aren't they actually half-siblings?
Oh, and I don't remember what chapter this was from, but I loved this quote about the Count:
"Has the eccentric committed any new originality?"
...as if being original were a crime.
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Oct 19, 2007
OK - I've been busy lately, but I did finally finish Volume 3. Anybody else have any comments?
Grace
Fri Oct 19, 2007
I haven't been involved in this group read, so I don't know where you all are. But, when you get to the end, I want to have a discussion on whether the book or the movie has a more satisfying ending. I have a definite opinion, but I don't want to spoil the ending for anyone.
Antonia I. SA 1030
Mon Oct 22, 2007
I want in on that discussion too! Mr. Green I have some very strong opinions about the endings! ;)
Grace
Mon Oct 22, 2007
MonteCristo LSP#8 wrote:
Great! Someone let me know when the majority is finished with the book and I'll start a thread.
Maece aka Jennifer
Wed Nov 07, 2007
I think I'm the only one who is still reading it - and I think Jared is the only other one who read it. Anyway, he's finished and I'm at Chapter 105, and I've placed the movie on hold at the library. Interesting thing is, I also put Robin Hood Prince of Thieves on hold (I've never seen it), and lined up like that it was interesting that they both have the same director, and that I'm 10th in the queue for RH and 1st for MC. Hmmm.
...oh! In Ch. 105 he mentions Abelard and Heloise... a story that I studied in my college humanities class. It's so cool to see all of these rather obscure references that most people have never heard of brought up again, I feel like I didn't study them for nothing afterall :D
Another point, I sincerely doubt that marijuana could produce the prolonged fake death of Valentine.
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Nov 13, 2007
Well, I finished the book! YAYYYYYYYY! Anyway, the "wait and hope" was a very good summary of the book, I thought. I got the movie from the library... but didn't watch it because the sound was bad :( So, I put it on hold again and hopefully the next copy won't have any problems. Feel free to start discussing... :)
Grace
Tue Nov 13, 2007
Great! Ok, I'll have to watch the movie again so I can make sure I've got the particulars right. Going off my reading of the book and watching of the movie several years ago, I thought the book ending was horrible! Why does he let Mercedes live out her life alone and grieving and go off with his underage servant? What was the point of that? He's supposed to have gotten over his need for revenge and then he ruins her life. She's not the one who put him in prison, but he destroys everything she loves and leaves her to live with it. Was she just too old for him at that point? Was she too needy? Why did he do that?
The movie ending fulfilled my sense of poetic justice much better. Bad guy and good guy have thrilling sword fight, good guy marries girl and it turns out has a son. So, the bad people have bad things happen to them and the good people have good things happen to them. Not exactly realistic, but Monte Cristo wasn't written to be philosophy, it was a novel and it should have a better ending. The same sort of thing happens in Les Miserable and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. All the characters get to a point where they can live happily ever after and then they either all get killed off, or the story continues on until they are dead so that we know they didn't live happily ever after.
Did anyone else feel the same, or am I being a sappy girl?
Antonia I. SA 1030
Wed Nov 14, 2007
Well to start off, let me say that I haven't watched the new Count of Monte Cristo movie. I've only seen the old TV version with Richard Chamberlain (of course, I do not like this movie as well as the book, but Chamberlain is absolutely fabulous at flipping cloaks). However, judging from the above post, they have just about the same ending, with Dantes ending up with Mercedes, and the boy being his son. I personally hated that ending. First of all, Dantes made a big deal at the beginning of the book that Mercedes was his finance, not his lover. So how did she get pregnant, hmm? Sounds a bit fishy to me. Also, in the book Mercedes doesn't want to go with Edmond, she chooses to live out her life in exile, and the Count, only after being rejected by Mercedes, turns to what's her name, who would have done anything in her power to make him happy, though he was pretty far gone by this point. The Count was just too bitter to lead a normal, happy life. I just hate "forced" happy endings, which is exactly what the movie felt like to me. You know, no matter how bad things have been, no matter how far you have walked down a dark path, all you need is that one special girl, and "poof" you're on top of the mountain again. All the past is wiped away like it never existed, and even though you have completly destroyed the world that the girl has lived in and loved for so many years and have turned into a dark and twisted creature, she is happy to jump into your arms again. Bah! Humbug! Absolutely ridiculous.
As for Les Miserable, I realize that it has been a couple of years since the last time that I read it, but I am almost certain that the one couple (Jean Valjean's daughter and her "young man") ends up okay. True, Valjean has rather a rough time of it, but for Victor Hugo, this is a very, very (and I could add more very's, but I think you get the picture) happy book. In truth, I don't really see how The Hunchback of Notre Dame could have ended "happy". Hugo really liked to kill off all of his characters. One book that I read by him (and forgive me forgetting the name) everything was finally going fine at the end, when, all of a sudden, the two main characters get killed (I think one of them committed suicide, but that is beside the point, they were dead) in the very last paragraph. I mean, really, was that necessary? He could have just as easily let them float down the river on that raft, without killing them, and it would have made the book much more pleasant. Of course, if he had done that, I probably wouldn't have remembered the book, so maybe he knew best after all.
Disclaimer: This is all strictly my opinion. I am not saying that it is the one and only true opinion, nor do I intend to put anyone else's opinion down. I sometime come across that way, but it's genetic, and I can't help it. ;)
Maece aka Jennifer
Wed Nov 14, 2007
GA2007 wrote:
I thought the book ending was horrible! Why does he let Mercedes live out her life alone and grieving and go off with his underage servant? What was the point of that? He's supposed to have gotten over his need for revenge and then he ruins her life. She's not the one who put him in prison, but he destroys everything she loves and leaves her to live with it. Was she just too old for him at that point? Was she too needy? Why did he do that?
That bothered me too, but MonteCristo makes some good points, that Mercedes refused him (at least, if she did refuse him this is a good point - but when did he ask? Did I miss something here?). It did occur to me to think that he was leaving her because she was too old, or at least because she was too absorbed in her own grief to feel love. Still, I did find myself wishing that they could have ended up together... perhaps in heaven :) Anyway, I wouldn't want to see this happen at the expense of compromising either of their noble characters (ie an out-of-wedlock child... that is for Villefort and Madame Danglars, NOT Edmond and Mercedes!). I also wouldn't have been completely satisfied with Mercedes leaving Fernand for Edmond, but given that Fernand kills himself...
Haydee was ready to die without him. He started out loving her as a daughter, but she loved him as something else, it's not as though he was taking advantage of her. But, even if he were taking advantage of her, I think that his acceptance and use of slavery was meant to be a pointed contrast to the rise of democracy that came with the French Revolution. You have to remember that this book actually was written about the same time and place the story takes place.
He didn't ruin Mercedes' life, he only unveiled how Fernand had ruined it. He was pursuing justice, and part of the tragedy of sin is that it does hurt innocent people as well as the sinner himself.
GA2007 wrote:
Monte Cristo wasn't written to be philosophy
I take issue with this statement, and I could do so from two angles:
First - the weaker position - everything is philosophical whether it intends to be or not. This is true even of the most trivial things. As Jack Sparrow would say "That is a sad commentary in and of itself."
But - the stronger position - I think that this novel fully intends being at least somewhat philosophical. I agree that it is not a dry doctoral dissertation (neither is life for that matter), but novels very often have a purpose and a point beyond mere entertainment. I believe that some of the main philosophical points of this book were:
1. There is a God, and he does punish the wicked and reward the good... even in this life.
2. There is no such thing as pleasure or pain, only the comparison of the two. You cannot fully appreciate either in the absence of the other.
3. Children, innocent though they may be, often suffer for their parents' crimes, as the Bible says "To the third and fourth generation."
4. "Wait and hope" - meaning that human knowledge is limited, and there is always cause for optimism.
Now, having stated those, I must say that I disagree with number two. What I am about to say may not apply equally to all people, but in most cases I do believe that innocent bliss can be appreciated within itself. Pain hurts, and often even after the tragedy is passed the pain can remain, marring what might otherwise have been a happy resolution. If pain reoccurs too many times, or occurs without any apparent reason, or for reasons beyond one's control, it will lead to an insecurity that will never allow happiness to be fully enjoyed ever again. The doubt will always remain that happiness can be taken away at any moment, for any reason, or for no reason at all... my two cents ;)
This is why I REALLY think he should have told Morrel about Valentine before the month was up. I can understand if he didn't do so right away, because he needed her death to be convincing - but most of the family didn't even know about Morrel yet, and anyway he was willing to tell Noirtier, and everybody noticed his apparent lack of grief! I don't think that Edmond had the right to cause Morrel this month of grief.
Antonia I. SA 1030
Wed Nov 14, 2007
Did Dantes ask Mercedes to come with him?
Maybe I read a bit more into that than was actually there. I am almost certain (though I haven't read the book in over a year) that Edmond at the very least offered her assistance (which I guess is different than proposing) and she refused him, choosing instead to leave (didn't she go away?). I am now beginning to confuse myself as to the ending. I guess I need to go back a read that part again.
Justice
I guess you are right about the Count merely unmasking Fernand, but I don't see how you can say he was pursuing "justice". He wasn't after justice, he was after revenge, brutal revenge and he would use any means to acheive it. For instance, rescuing that condemned criminal (the one without a tongue) just so he could have a mute servant. And while he was rather good at revenge, he wasn't very discriminating. Caderouse hardly had anything to do with the whole plot (all he did was not do anything, and he had the added excuse of being drunk) yet the Count murders him. Danglars, the mastermind behind the whole thing, gets off basically scot-free, only losing his money (which, granted, for him was pretty bad, but still...).
Morrel.
I think that the Count did this on purpose to test Morrel. I can't say why, because I don't really have any conclusive evidence, but that's the way it seemed to me. It was only one month, which might sound like a long time to grief for someone who really isn't dead, but remember that without the Count's intervention, Valentine would really have been dead, which would have been much worse. My guess is that the Count told Nortier, because finding out that his beloved grandaughter was dead just might have killed him. After all, he was a rather frail old man, with no purpose in living.
Maece aka Jennifer
Wed Nov 14, 2007
MonteCristo LSP#8 wrote:
Justice
"Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord..." and that is what makes it justice. But in this case, The Count obviously felt he was the Lord's agent of justice. Now, he believed this because of some rather extraordinary circumstantial evidence, but in my mind that is hardly a command from God. However, this is not my book, so let's assume the book's logic and say that The Count is God's agent of justice... and I am not sure that he would actually use any means to get it. Afterall, he never actually killed anyone.
In the case of rescuing the criminal so that he could have a mute servant, I do not think he did that either for justice or revenge. Neither do I think he did it for mercy, I think he did it mainly because he wanted a mute, and secondarily because he wanted someone loyal. In this case I think The Count's reasons go back to what I said about the contrast between slavery and the new democracy. Though, non-Western punishments are well-know for not fitting the crime, and to have your body permanently mangled, to become disabled, and then to die - merely for stealing - is not quite just IMHO.
In the beginning Caderouse actually wanted to help Dantes, though he was a coward. For that, The Count rewarded him. However, Caderouse became greedy to the point of committing murder. When The Count discovered this, his mercy towards Caderouse was over! Even so, The Count did not murder Caderouse, he merely did not save him from being murdered by another. Even if The Count had murdered him, it could be called self-defence given that he caught Caderouse in the act of breaking and entering.
In the case of Fernand, The Count did not kill him, he killed himself. Also, in the case of Villefort, The Count did not actually kill anyone. Did he give poison to Madame Villefort? I can't remember now. However, he was not the murderer. When he saw how many had died because of his actions, he felt sorry that it had gotten out of control (perhaps he only meant to disgrace the family with scandal, both through Madame Villefort and Benedetto), and lost some of the zeal for his mission. That is why he did not pursue Danglars further... though even if he had his zeal, I don't think it was ever his intention to murder anyone, as no one had actually murdered him or Mercedes or his father (Despite his dramatic comments at the execution in Rome ;) ).
Antonia I. SA 1030
Thu Nov 15, 2007
I agree with you about the servant. That was a last minute addition to my post, and it didn't come out quite like I wanted it to. I was trying to use that as an example that he wasn't necessarily interested in justice, or he wouldn't have rescued him (for he was quilty). The Count definitely felt that he was God's agent of justice, but I didn't get the feeling that the book agreed with him, if you know what I mean. But that could just be me.
Maece aka Jennifer Thu Nov 15, 2007
Hmmmm - I'd never considered that the book might disagree with him... though at the end he had some doubts about his position.
I was just reading over this thread again, and a few things occurred to me:
1) I CAN'T BELIEVE I DIDN'T MENTION THIS BEFORE!!! Anyway, the scene with the telegraph operator, where he bribes the gardener who is talking about not sleeping so that he can guard his 16 (or whatever pitiful number it was) strawberries from mice! Ha! I just loved this because I love gardening! Anyway...
2) It's really poetic justice how Caderouse met his end because Dantes didn't expose his enemy, when the reason that Dantes suffered was because Caderouse didn't expose his enemies... except that Caderouse, a murderer, deserved what happened to him and Dantes did not deserve what happened to him... also, Dantes actually did expose Caderouse's enemy after Caderouse died.
Grace
Sun Nov 18, 2007
Well, I'm out of my depth here because I haven't read this book since 2003. But, ya'll have made me want to go back and read it again.
Off topic, I know that Hugo kills off all his characters, but I don't like that he does that, even though I loved all the moral philosophy in Les Miserables. I think he did it because he was getting paid by the word and when he counted up the happy ending total it wasn't enough to make rent, so he tacked on another few chapters by killing them all off and got his paycheck.
Antonia I. SA 1030
Mon Nov 19, 2007
That's great! I think that may be the funniest thing I've read lately. Mr. Green
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Nov 27, 2007
Wow. Talk about random motivations... couldn't he just invent longer happy descriptions?
Antonia I. SA 1030
Tue Nov 27, 2007
I seriously doubt that he could even if he wanted to. I think the guy must have been seriously depressed or something, why else would he write such gruesome stuff? Les Miserables is still one of my favorite books, but it certainly isn't something you read to cheer yourself up. For that you'd have to go with P.G. Wodehouse, The Hitchhikers's Trilogy, or Don Quixote.
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 06, 2007
The group read will begin next Monday (July 9th). Everyone is welcome to join and discuss. If you don't have the book and can't get it quickly, there is an online version available here:
http://www.online-literature.com/dumas/cristo/1/
I am planning to read about one chapter per day on business days (subject to change). If you read faster or slower, that is fine, just try not to post spoilers before they come up in discussion.
Finnbar
Fri Jul 06, 2007
hmm, the Count, so tortured! so afflicted! maybe I'll reread it with ya'll..
Heather Belle OFC
Sat Jul 07, 2007
I've already read it so I'll just lurk and see what y'all say about it. :D Is that permitted?
Elisabeth Starr
Sat Jul 07, 2007
I haven't read it yet, but have intended to for a while now :D So I'll join you.
Carolyn
Sat Jul 07, 2007
Heather wrote:
I've already read it so I'll just lurk and see what y'all say about it. :D Is that permitted?
Me too. It's been awhile but I seem to remember liking it overall. Because... never mind. I shan't spill anything and I shan't display a potentially faulty memory. ;)
Charlyn
Sat Jul 07, 2007
I might have to start a little late. I am going to a camp tomorrow and I..m not sure I will have time to read. But I..m a fast reader and will be able to catch up quickly Smile
Angie I.
Sun Jul 08, 2007
That's one of my favorite books! I'm in! :D
Patrick Eklektos
Sun Jul 08, 2007
I have already read the book and I was mightily pleased with it. I think I shall do so again. Count me in (there is NO pun here). A chapter-a-day eh? That is easy. I look forward to this post tomorrow! Mr. Green
Sola Deo Gloria
Maece aka Jennifer (Online)
Mon Jul 09, 2007
Lurking is definitely permitted! We may speed up the pace if it seems everyone wants to go faster.
Patrick Eklektos
Mon Jul 09, 2007
I finished my quota of the day! Mr. Green
I would like to observe Dumas' painting of his characters. That is, I would like to take early note of the fact that Dantes is painted as morally good in his conduct of his duties on ship and in his amiable respect for his father. It is interesting to note that, while Dantes did not like Danglars, he did not slight his work. Whereas, the reverse is true of Danglars.
SDG
Maece aka Jennifer
Mon Jul 09, 2007
Yeah - my edition (1936!) has an introduction that includes the following:
Quote:
...the moment a character appears, the reader knows at once whether it is a hero or a villain. If a villain, he "darts an oblique glance, sparkling with hatred"; if a hero he is"tall, sinewy, with a fine pair of dark eyes and and an air of composure and of resolve."
...in the first chapter I recognized this tendency. From what I have heard of Dumas, he is overly simple. In fact, most of his books are written by a group of authors rather than himself alone, and his critics referred to him as "Alexandre Dumas and Company, Fiction Factory." However, his books (particularly The Count) have withstood the test of time and become classics. Just shows what critics know ;)
Also in an insert that came with the book, mention is made of a French lit. professor who declared that there are only 36 plots. Of those, The Count is now considered the archetypal revenge plot. So, while fiction for it's own sake may be little more than fun, it is interesting to me to note that certain works of fiction have greatly impacted other works of literature, and the whole of knowledge in general. I remember reading a short abridged version of The Count when I was very young (complete with many pictures), and loving it. I am glad now to go back and read the whole which I have missed until now.
Daniel J. Mount OFC
Mon Jul 09, 2007
I'll have to catch up with this on Thursday, since I'm busy getting ready to fly out to Atlanta (through Wednesday night). Sorry for the delay on my end! I look forward to catching up with you all then. :)
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Jul 10, 2007
I read the 2nd chapter but don't really have any new comments at this point.
Antonia I. SA 1030
Fri Jul 13, 2007
I'm sorry that I haven't been on here, but we've had a revival this week, and I just haven't had any time to read. I'll get caught up over the weekend. Where are we at? Chapter 5, isn't it?
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 13, 2007
Yup. It's been a bit hard to come up with discussion topics yet...
Angie I.
Fri Jul 13, 2007
It seems I have less time on my hands than I thought so I guess you will have to count me back out. Sorry about that. :(
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 13, 2007
That's ok - it will probably take us around a month to finish, so you can always jump back in later ;)
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Jul 17, 2007
OK - just finished chapter 7. If you are not caught up (and have never read the book), be forewarned of spoilers.
Anyway, characters I found interesting:
1. Caderousse. He is basically a good guy, but ends up doing the wrong thing out of fear and weakness of character. However, it was weakness of character that gave him the opportunity to do good in the first place. If he had not been drunk, Danglars and Ferdinand would not have dared to create their plans in front of him. Yet, if he had a stronger character, he would not have been worried about being associated with a Bonapartist in order to expose trickery against a friend and a good man.
2. Villefort. Another interesting character. Likable, but shallow. I like the sincere description of shallow joy. First is a list of all that Villefort stands to gain from marrying Renee, then the following description "All the elements combined constituted for Villefort a ravishing sum of happiness; so that when with an inward view he contemplated steadily his interior life, it was as if he looked at spots on the sun." HAHAHA! Not quite sarcastic but almost.
Heather Brooke
Tue Jul 17, 2007
Quote:
Quote:
...the moment a character appears, the reader knows at once whether it is a hero or a villain. If a villain, he "darts an oblique glance, sparkling with hatred"; if a hero he is"tall, sinewy, with a fine pair of dark eyes and and an air of composure and of resolve."
...in the first chapter I recognized this tendency. From what I have heard of Dumas, he is overly simple. In fact, most of his books are written by a group of authors rather than himself alone, and his critics referred to him as "Alexandre Dumas and Company, Fiction Factory." However, his books (particularly The Count) have withstood the test of time and become classics. Just shows what critics know Wink
I totally have to agree with you! I found myself already picking out which characters that I will love throughout the book, and those that I will dread!
Maece aka Jennifer
Thanks to another thread, I just discovered that many of the chapters are available in audio format for free.
http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1005
Antonia I. SA 1030
Tue Jul 17, 2007
This is terrible! I want to join in this discussion, but I already know everything that is going to happen, and I'm afraid it will color all my remarks. I would really hate to spoil the story for all those who haven't ever read this before, so I guess I'll just hang back and wait for a safe opening!
Caderousse was definitely weak, and I always felt sorry for him. He was just so lame! Villefort... [great, here is where I have to leave off so not as to give anything away]. Danglars was totally rotten, and Fernand really needed to get hold of himself!
Mr. Green[/i]
Patrick Eklektos
Thu Jul 19, 2007
Sorry I have not been with you all of late, but I have to punch out as I am trading my afternoon Classics for Theology. However, I am still reading Classics in the evening, but, as that is already taken by War and Peace, it does not matter in the slightest. Sorry about that.
SDG
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 20, 2007
Chapter 10:
The king is funny - he doesn't quite seem kingly enough though. I liked the description:
Quote:
...with the self-satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own while he is but commenting upon the idea of another...
Who would ever say something like that today? He says it as if it is common knowledge that an original idea is something VERY separate from a commentary. I agree that it is separate, but it's certainly not a distinction that people seem to make very often today.
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 27, 2007
I just finished Chapter 17 - am I getting ahead? I skipped a few days then made them up all at once and I think I may have miscounted how many. Anyway, The Abbe is cool - he reminds me of Robinson Crusoe.
I thought that it was interesting that Dantes confided to Fria that he would not have retained Danglars if the choice were up to him, as he had found inaccuracies in his work. Yet, he never told this information to his own employer. Hmmm.
BTW - how many people are still in this thing? We originally had 16 (anonymous) votes for The Count, and two have since bowed out, and three (including myself) have posted comments. Unless I missed something somewhere...
Loshie
Sat Jul 28, 2007
oh! Tell me where you are and I may try and read it again with y'all.
I read it a few months back, and I have to say it knocked Jane Eyre off for Favorite Old Novel. =P
Maece aka Jennifer
Mon Jul 30, 2007
I guess Chapter 18 as of now - though I think I'm about 2 chapters ahead of where I originally set the pace. Tomorrow I may be further ahead - it's kinda hard to put down :D
Lord Jarodicus
Mon Jul 30, 2007
I randomly grabbed the book at the library, and I'm about half-way finished. Maybe a little more. Very Happy I appreciate a book that I can attack for days on end and still not be done with
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Jul 31, 2007
OK - I just finished Chapter 21, so if any of you are not there yet, beware spoilers!
One thing that is just a little annoying is that descriptions/illustrations have anticipatory details, so that you know what's going to happen long before it actually does. For instance, the picture on the page where he was thrown into the sea told me what was going to happen before he even was carried outside... there were little clues in the narrative all along and yet he was SURPRISED when he wasn't buried (probably because the "grave diggers" were referred to as such). Or, so much attention had previously been drawn to the fact that he kept the knife with him inside the bag - it's not like I didn't know how he would escape *Rolling Eyes* Or the old man telling him about the treasure - the old man had described the treasure to so many other's before, and I certainly never believed that he was mad, it's not like you couldn't see it coming...
And yet, I think that this "I know what's going to happen" actually gets me more interested than if I had no clue. It's kinda like when you're a kid on vacation and you keep asking your parents "Are we there yet?" I KNOW what's coming, I just don't know when, and so I get impatient, and I read more energetically (if that makes sense - reading energetically), looking for the closure that I anticipate. Hmmm...
Daniel J. Mount OFC
Wed Aug 01, 2007
I, too, overestimated the time I had available. But if I can spare the time, I'll catch up with you and start commenting!
Maece aka Jennifer
Thu Aug 02, 2007
Chapter 29: This guy is starting to remind me of Ghost Rider...
Lord Jarodicus
Fri Aug 03, 2007
Okay, an awesome quote from chapter 55:
"But really, my dear count, we are talking as much of women as they do of us; it is unpardonable!"
Mr. Green
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:08
Haha - someone sounds a bit arrogant in the battle of the sexes. Anyway, I'm only through chapter 38, so I guess I'll find out who/if/why about the arrogance later. Anyway, I liked the character Cocles, M. Morrel's loyal, senior accountant. He thought of life as a ledger. Moreover, the idea that everything will add up was like a moral law of the universe for him. If something didn't add up, it was if you had violated gravity. Particularly, if a solid business could not pay, or if a shaky one could, it was like violating the law of gravity. If it happened, he felt he might just as well be insane. I identify with that guy.
Maece aka Jennifer
Thu Aug 23, 2007
Maece wrote:
That's ok - it will probably take us around a month to finish, so you can always jump back in later ;)
When I wrote that, I didn't realize that there were four volumes, and that the thirty chapters listed in the index only represented the first. So, it WILL take over a month. Now that I've been reading more, hopefully it won't take four months.
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Aug 24, 2007
I just finished Chapter 50.
I find it very interesting that this story is written at the time of The Enlightenment, The French Revolution, and generally speaking, the dawn of democracy and modern civilization. Yet, the Count seems to be a contrasting personification of vigilante justice, and even cruelty at times.
Think of his slave Ali - the Count felt no duty to save this man's life. In fact, he said that he deliberately waited until the man's tongue has been cut out before he did save him. He seems to have done this simply because it was a whim of his to own a mute slave. He once told a servant of his that Ali was more like a dog than a servant, and were Ali were to fail in his duties, the Count would kill him. His lover (if that is what she truly is - it is hard to say at this point) is also a slave.
He does not believe in philanthropy in general, and in every case where he seems to be practicing it he has a good and selfish reason (for this I admire him, I really believe that any philanthropist who belies himself to be a true philanthropist is deceiving himself, and is therefore dangerous).
The count seems to really believe in physiognomy, and employs it immediately to ascertain the character of everyone he meets. Even if phrenology was popular at the time, for me this seems too naive a belief for one such as the count :-/
I realize that the count did not make friends with Albert and Franz simply from coincidence. Yet, his interest (particularly in Albert) dragged on so long without the slightest hint why Albert was the chosen one??? It was nice to see that finally resolved. Albert is basically the son he would have had by Mercedes, had misfortune not befallen them both. Yet, Albert is also Fernand's son... so if the count loves Albert as a son, it seems in stark contradiction to the general trend of the story that sons are like their fathers. Maximillian, for instance, or either of the boys begotten by Villefort.
It was interesting to see the reference to Rousseau's Emile'! Rousseau WAS French, and from what I've read that book was considered quite an authority on child rearing at the time. I have actually read that book, and it is interesting, though I would not advise taking too much parenting advise from an absentee father of five...
Lord Jarodicus
Thu Aug 30, 2007
I finished weeks ago. :P I really respect a book I can attack for weeks on end and still not finish. I finally put in a few late-nighters and got it done.
Maece aka Jennifer
Enjoy it while you can. It's hard to pull late nighters once you get married.
Anyway, I just finished Chapter 73. I never expected the Count to work as a matchmaker... or un-matchmaker as the case may be. Though, I do think it's quite unfair to be pairing Bendetto with Ms. Eugenie Danglars. She hasn't done anything wrong except to be in love with music rather than a man (and that could change if she met the right guy...), to be independent and strong rather than traditionally feminine, etc. I'm not saying that Albert ought to love her (she doesn't love him either, for that matter), but why do they have to try to set her up with BENDETTO?? I mean, he basically tortured his adopted mom to death! What did she do to deserve him? ...besides, aren't they actually half-siblings?
Oh, and I don't remember what chapter this was from, but I loved this quote about the Count:
"Has the eccentric committed any new originality?"
...as if being original were a crime.
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Oct 19, 2007
OK - I've been busy lately, but I did finally finish Volume 3. Anybody else have any comments?
Grace
Fri Oct 19, 2007
I haven't been involved in this group read, so I don't know where you all are. But, when you get to the end, I want to have a discussion on whether the book or the movie has a more satisfying ending. I have a definite opinion, but I don't want to spoil the ending for anyone.
Antonia I. SA 1030
Mon Oct 22, 2007
I want in on that discussion too! Mr. Green I have some very strong opinions about the endings! ;)
Grace
Mon Oct 22, 2007
MonteCristo LSP#8 wrote:
Great! Someone let me know when the majority is finished with the book and I'll start a thread.
Maece aka Jennifer
Wed Nov 07, 2007
I think I'm the only one who is still reading it - and I think Jared is the only other one who read it. Anyway, he's finished and I'm at Chapter 105, and I've placed the movie on hold at the library. Interesting thing is, I also put Robin Hood Prince of Thieves on hold (I've never seen it), and lined up like that it was interesting that they both have the same director, and that I'm 10th in the queue for RH and 1st for MC. Hmmm.
...oh! In Ch. 105 he mentions Abelard and Heloise... a story that I studied in my college humanities class. It's so cool to see all of these rather obscure references that most people have never heard of brought up again, I feel like I didn't study them for nothing afterall :D
Another point, I sincerely doubt that marijuana could produce the prolonged fake death of Valentine.
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Nov 13, 2007
Well, I finished the book! YAYYYYYYYY! Anyway, the "wait and hope" was a very good summary of the book, I thought. I got the movie from the library... but didn't watch it because the sound was bad :( So, I put it on hold again and hopefully the next copy won't have any problems. Feel free to start discussing... :)
Grace
Tue Nov 13, 2007
Great! Ok, I'll have to watch the movie again so I can make sure I've got the particulars right. Going off my reading of the book and watching of the movie several years ago, I thought the book ending was horrible! Why does he let Mercedes live out her life alone and grieving and go off with his underage servant? What was the point of that? He's supposed to have gotten over his need for revenge and then he ruins her life. She's not the one who put him in prison, but he destroys everything she loves and leaves her to live with it. Was she just too old for him at that point? Was she too needy? Why did he do that?
The movie ending fulfilled my sense of poetic justice much better. Bad guy and good guy have thrilling sword fight, good guy marries girl and it turns out has a son. So, the bad people have bad things happen to them and the good people have good things happen to them. Not exactly realistic, but Monte Cristo wasn't written to be philosophy, it was a novel and it should have a better ending. The same sort of thing happens in Les Miserable and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. All the characters get to a point where they can live happily ever after and then they either all get killed off, or the story continues on until they are dead so that we know they didn't live happily ever after.
Did anyone else feel the same, or am I being a sappy girl?
Antonia I. SA 1030
Wed Nov 14, 2007
Well to start off, let me say that I haven't watched the new Count of Monte Cristo movie. I've only seen the old TV version with Richard Chamberlain (of course, I do not like this movie as well as the book, but Chamberlain is absolutely fabulous at flipping cloaks). However, judging from the above post, they have just about the same ending, with Dantes ending up with Mercedes, and the boy being his son. I personally hated that ending. First of all, Dantes made a big deal at the beginning of the book that Mercedes was his finance, not his lover. So how did she get pregnant, hmm? Sounds a bit fishy to me. Also, in the book Mercedes doesn't want to go with Edmond, she chooses to live out her life in exile, and the Count, only after being rejected by Mercedes, turns to what's her name, who would have done anything in her power to make him happy, though he was pretty far gone by this point. The Count was just too bitter to lead a normal, happy life. I just hate "forced" happy endings, which is exactly what the movie felt like to me. You know, no matter how bad things have been, no matter how far you have walked down a dark path, all you need is that one special girl, and "poof" you're on top of the mountain again. All the past is wiped away like it never existed, and even though you have completly destroyed the world that the girl has lived in and loved for so many years and have turned into a dark and twisted creature, she is happy to jump into your arms again. Bah! Humbug! Absolutely ridiculous.
As for Les Miserable, I realize that it has been a couple of years since the last time that I read it, but I am almost certain that the one couple (Jean Valjean's daughter and her "young man") ends up okay. True, Valjean has rather a rough time of it, but for Victor Hugo, this is a very, very (and I could add more very's, but I think you get the picture) happy book. In truth, I don't really see how The Hunchback of Notre Dame could have ended "happy". Hugo really liked to kill off all of his characters. One book that I read by him (and forgive me forgetting the name) everything was finally going fine at the end, when, all of a sudden, the two main characters get killed (I think one of them committed suicide, but that is beside the point, they were dead) in the very last paragraph. I mean, really, was that necessary? He could have just as easily let them float down the river on that raft, without killing them, and it would have made the book much more pleasant. Of course, if he had done that, I probably wouldn't have remembered the book, so maybe he knew best after all.
Disclaimer: This is all strictly my opinion. I am not saying that it is the one and only true opinion, nor do I intend to put anyone else's opinion down. I sometime come across that way, but it's genetic, and I can't help it. ;)
Maece aka Jennifer
Wed Nov 14, 2007
GA2007 wrote:
I thought the book ending was horrible! Why does he let Mercedes live out her life alone and grieving and go off with his underage servant? What was the point of that? He's supposed to have gotten over his need for revenge and then he ruins her life. She's not the one who put him in prison, but he destroys everything she loves and leaves her to live with it. Was she just too old for him at that point? Was she too needy? Why did he do that?
That bothered me too, but MonteCristo makes some good points, that Mercedes refused him (at least, if she did refuse him this is a good point - but when did he ask? Did I miss something here?). It did occur to me to think that he was leaving her because she was too old, or at least because she was too absorbed in her own grief to feel love. Still, I did find myself wishing that they could have ended up together... perhaps in heaven :) Anyway, I wouldn't want to see this happen at the expense of compromising either of their noble characters (ie an out-of-wedlock child... that is for Villefort and Madame Danglars, NOT Edmond and Mercedes!). I also wouldn't have been completely satisfied with Mercedes leaving Fernand for Edmond, but given that Fernand kills himself...
Haydee was ready to die without him. He started out loving her as a daughter, but she loved him as something else, it's not as though he was taking advantage of her. But, even if he were taking advantage of her, I think that his acceptance and use of slavery was meant to be a pointed contrast to the rise of democracy that came with the French Revolution. You have to remember that this book actually was written about the same time and place the story takes place.
He didn't ruin Mercedes' life, he only unveiled how Fernand had ruined it. He was pursuing justice, and part of the tragedy of sin is that it does hurt innocent people as well as the sinner himself.
GA2007 wrote:
Monte Cristo wasn't written to be philosophy
I take issue with this statement, and I could do so from two angles:
First - the weaker position - everything is philosophical whether it intends to be or not. This is true even of the most trivial things. As Jack Sparrow would say "That is a sad commentary in and of itself."
But - the stronger position - I think that this novel fully intends being at least somewhat philosophical. I agree that it is not a dry doctoral dissertation (neither is life for that matter), but novels very often have a purpose and a point beyond mere entertainment. I believe that some of the main philosophical points of this book were:
1. There is a God, and he does punish the wicked and reward the good... even in this life.
2. There is no such thing as pleasure or pain, only the comparison of the two. You cannot fully appreciate either in the absence of the other.
3. Children, innocent though they may be, often suffer for their parents' crimes, as the Bible says "To the third and fourth generation."
4. "Wait and hope" - meaning that human knowledge is limited, and there is always cause for optimism.
Now, having stated those, I must say that I disagree with number two. What I am about to say may not apply equally to all people, but in most cases I do believe that innocent bliss can be appreciated within itself. Pain hurts, and often even after the tragedy is passed the pain can remain, marring what might otherwise have been a happy resolution. If pain reoccurs too many times, or occurs without any apparent reason, or for reasons beyond one's control, it will lead to an insecurity that will never allow happiness to be fully enjoyed ever again. The doubt will always remain that happiness can be taken away at any moment, for any reason, or for no reason at all... my two cents ;)
This is why I REALLY think he should have told Morrel about Valentine before the month was up. I can understand if he didn't do so right away, because he needed her death to be convincing - but most of the family didn't even know about Morrel yet, and anyway he was willing to tell Noirtier, and everybody noticed his apparent lack of grief! I don't think that Edmond had the right to cause Morrel this month of grief.
Antonia I. SA 1030
Wed Nov 14, 2007
Did Dantes ask Mercedes to come with him?
Maybe I read a bit more into that than was actually there. I am almost certain (though I haven't read the book in over a year) that Edmond at the very least offered her assistance (which I guess is different than proposing) and she refused him, choosing instead to leave (didn't she go away?). I am now beginning to confuse myself as to the ending. I guess I need to go back a read that part again.
Justice
I guess you are right about the Count merely unmasking Fernand, but I don't see how you can say he was pursuing "justice". He wasn't after justice, he was after revenge, brutal revenge and he would use any means to acheive it. For instance, rescuing that condemned criminal (the one without a tongue) just so he could have a mute servant. And while he was rather good at revenge, he wasn't very discriminating. Caderouse hardly had anything to do with the whole plot (all he did was not do anything, and he had the added excuse of being drunk) yet the Count murders him. Danglars, the mastermind behind the whole thing, gets off basically scot-free, only losing his money (which, granted, for him was pretty bad, but still...).
Morrel.
I think that the Count did this on purpose to test Morrel. I can't say why, because I don't really have any conclusive evidence, but that's the way it seemed to me. It was only one month, which might sound like a long time to grief for someone who really isn't dead, but remember that without the Count's intervention, Valentine would really have been dead, which would have been much worse. My guess is that the Count told Nortier, because finding out that his beloved grandaughter was dead just might have killed him. After all, he was a rather frail old man, with no purpose in living.
Maece aka Jennifer
Wed Nov 14, 2007
MonteCristo LSP#8 wrote:
Justice
"Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord..." and that is what makes it justice. But in this case, The Count obviously felt he was the Lord's agent of justice. Now, he believed this because of some rather extraordinary circumstantial evidence, but in my mind that is hardly a command from God. However, this is not my book, so let's assume the book's logic and say that The Count is God's agent of justice... and I am not sure that he would actually use any means to get it. Afterall, he never actually killed anyone.
In the case of rescuing the criminal so that he could have a mute servant, I do not think he did that either for justice or revenge. Neither do I think he did it for mercy, I think he did it mainly because he wanted a mute, and secondarily because he wanted someone loyal. In this case I think The Count's reasons go back to what I said about the contrast between slavery and the new democracy. Though, non-Western punishments are well-know for not fitting the crime, and to have your body permanently mangled, to become disabled, and then to die - merely for stealing - is not quite just IMHO.
In the beginning Caderouse actually wanted to help Dantes, though he was a coward. For that, The Count rewarded him. However, Caderouse became greedy to the point of committing murder. When The Count discovered this, his mercy towards Caderouse was over! Even so, The Count did not murder Caderouse, he merely did not save him from being murdered by another. Even if The Count had murdered him, it could be called self-defence given that he caught Caderouse in the act of breaking and entering.
In the case of Fernand, The Count did not kill him, he killed himself. Also, in the case of Villefort, The Count did not actually kill anyone. Did he give poison to Madame Villefort? I can't remember now. However, he was not the murderer. When he saw how many had died because of his actions, he felt sorry that it had gotten out of control (perhaps he only meant to disgrace the family with scandal, both through Madame Villefort and Benedetto), and lost some of the zeal for his mission. That is why he did not pursue Danglars further... though even if he had his zeal, I don't think it was ever his intention to murder anyone, as no one had actually murdered him or Mercedes or his father (Despite his dramatic comments at the execution in Rome ;) ).
Antonia I. SA 1030
Thu Nov 15, 2007
I agree with you about the servant. That was a last minute addition to my post, and it didn't come out quite like I wanted it to. I was trying to use that as an example that he wasn't necessarily interested in justice, or he wouldn't have rescued him (for he was quilty). The Count definitely felt that he was God's agent of justice, but I didn't get the feeling that the book agreed with him, if you know what I mean. But that could just be me.
Maece aka Jennifer Thu Nov 15, 2007
Hmmmm - I'd never considered that the book might disagree with him... though at the end he had some doubts about his position.
I was just reading over this thread again, and a few things occurred to me:
1) I CAN'T BELIEVE I DIDN'T MENTION THIS BEFORE!!! Anyway, the scene with the telegraph operator, where he bribes the gardener who is talking about not sleeping so that he can guard his 16 (or whatever pitiful number it was) strawberries from mice! Ha! I just loved this because I love gardening! Anyway...
2) It's really poetic justice how Caderouse met his end because Dantes didn't expose his enemy, when the reason that Dantes suffered was because Caderouse didn't expose his enemies... except that Caderouse, a murderer, deserved what happened to him and Dantes did not deserve what happened to him... also, Dantes actually did expose Caderouse's enemy after Caderouse died.
Grace
Sun Nov 18, 2007
Well, I'm out of my depth here because I haven't read this book since 2003. But, ya'll have made me want to go back and read it again.
Off topic, I know that Hugo kills off all his characters, but I don't like that he does that, even though I loved all the moral philosophy in Les Miserables. I think he did it because he was getting paid by the word and when he counted up the happy ending total it wasn't enough to make rent, so he tacked on another few chapters by killing them all off and got his paycheck.
Antonia I. SA 1030
Mon Nov 19, 2007
That's great! I think that may be the funniest thing I've read lately. Mr. Green
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Nov 27, 2007
Wow. Talk about random motivations... couldn't he just invent longer happy descriptions?
Antonia I. SA 1030
Tue Nov 27, 2007
I seriously doubt that he could even if he wanted to. I think the guy must have been seriously depressed or something, why else would he write such gruesome stuff? Les Miserables is still one of my favorite books, but it certainly isn't something you read to cheer yourself up. For that you'd have to go with P.G. Wodehouse, The Hitchhikers's Trilogy, or Don Quixote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)