Songs and poems and interesting links and pictures are fine, but it's the mundane details of my life that keep 'em coming back for more!
Anyway, the results of the Soc midterm were favorable. The curve was set at 28, and I got 27, which gave me a 96% for the test. Cool, I'll take it.
I got a 98/100 on my most recent lab. Also good. But today we had another freakish heat wave, peaking at 103 degrees. Why, why does this always happen on lab days? Neither the prelab lecture room nor the lab itself have AC. I was seriously flirting with dehydration by the end of it. (Why don't you whine more? 'Cause that helps.)
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
As the Taijitu Spins
This is me talking about my week. Our Chem 60 class got our tests back this week, and I got one of the highest grades in the class. Apparently the high score was a 98%, and I got a 97%. Ooh, so close. It's a little baffling to me because this one lady, who sits in the front and answers every single in-class question wrong-- and I'm being almost completely serious here, it's uncanny-- apparently did well on the test. The prof also claimed that the lowest score, 45%, would be counted as a passing grade. Say wha? Well, it's not my class, but that does seem a tad over-generous.
Then I took my Soc 30 test, which was only 30 questions long. That seems like it might make the questions disproportionately weighted, point-wise. I'd make the test a bit longer, but again-- not my class.
Finally, today in Spch 60 we got the results back for our first exam. I personally found the test almost insultingly easy-- we were allowed to fill one side of an entire 5"x8" note card with as many notes as we liked, and I can write so small that I managed to fit the entire study guide on there with room to spare. Plus the questions were really obvious to anyone with any degree of deductive ability. Like for example, it was along the lines of:
"A boss who uses their position to force people to do things is:
A) Democratic
B) Authoritarian
C) Non-assertive
D) Collaborative"
But apparently this was enough to throw most of the class for a loop. There were 2 A's, 5 B's, 6 C's, 3 D's, and 7 F's. Which is actually a pretty appropriate spread, bell-curve-ly speaking. I was just kind of boggled that people could whiff so mightily on such a heavily-handicapped softball of a test. I mean, I wound up getting 102/100 and I didn't study at all, I just wrote shit on a note card. But the class is some weak-tea high school type stuff, anyhow. If not for the amusing backchat with some of my classmates, I'd be gritting my teeth just trying to sit through it.
Actually, that last leads me to something I've been thinking about, which is the idea of Challenge. I've been trying to expand my definition of Challenge ever since the summer. We all know that something can be challenging because it's hard, but I also realize now that something can be very challenging because it's very simple. It takes training and effort to run fast, but it also takes discipline and attention to run slow, to proceed at any kind of rate that isn't your choice. In other words, something can be so wispy and non-challenging that it actually becomes challenging to do it properly, and not just get bored and say "Ah, fuck it."
For instance: if your task was to, in one sitting, write the alphabet on every page of a spiral-bound notebook. You and I know you could do it-- there's nothing tricky about that. But to actually literally sit down and do it would take some effort. Easy, yet challenging. I find this compelling somehow. Discipline, focus, attention, intention.
From what I hear, this idea will be a central theme of David Foster Wallace's forthcoming and posthumous The Pale King, which I await with ravenous anticipation.
Then I took my Soc 30 test, which was only 30 questions long. That seems like it might make the questions disproportionately weighted, point-wise. I'd make the test a bit longer, but again-- not my class.
Finally, today in Spch 60 we got the results back for our first exam. I personally found the test almost insultingly easy-- we were allowed to fill one side of an entire 5"x8" note card with as many notes as we liked, and I can write so small that I managed to fit the entire study guide on there with room to spare. Plus the questions were really obvious to anyone with any degree of deductive ability. Like for example, it was along the lines of:
"A boss who uses their position to force people to do things is:
A) Democratic
B) Authoritarian
C) Non-assertive
D) Collaborative"
But apparently this was enough to throw most of the class for a loop. There were 2 A's, 5 B's, 6 C's, 3 D's, and 7 F's. Which is actually a pretty appropriate spread, bell-curve-ly speaking. I was just kind of boggled that people could whiff so mightily on such a heavily-handicapped softball of a test. I mean, I wound up getting 102/100 and I didn't study at all, I just wrote shit on a note card. But the class is some weak-tea high school type stuff, anyhow. If not for the amusing backchat with some of my classmates, I'd be gritting my teeth just trying to sit through it.
Actually, that last leads me to something I've been thinking about, which is the idea of Challenge. I've been trying to expand my definition of Challenge ever since the summer. We all know that something can be challenging because it's hard, but I also realize now that something can be very challenging because it's very simple. It takes training and effort to run fast, but it also takes discipline and attention to run slow, to proceed at any kind of rate that isn't your choice. In other words, something can be so wispy and non-challenging that it actually becomes challenging to do it properly, and not just get bored and say "Ah, fuck it."
For instance: if your task was to, in one sitting, write the alphabet on every page of a spiral-bound notebook. You and I know you could do it-- there's nothing tricky about that. But to actually literally sit down and do it would take some effort. Easy, yet challenging. I find this compelling somehow. Discipline, focus, attention, intention.
From what I hear, this idea will be a central theme of David Foster Wallace's forthcoming and posthumous The Pale King, which I await with ravenous anticipation.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The REAL Story
- Legend holds that there were nine founding members of the 武当派 (Wudang pai, trans. Wudang Clique or Wu-Tang Clan), the secret society dedicated to overthrowing the Jurchen Qing Dynasty and restoring their predecessors the Ming Dynasty to the Dragon Throne. Due to the paucity of accurate records extant from the period in question, modern historians have had difficulty verifying the exact identities and number of the founders. While revisionist historians have cast doubt on whether at least four of the traditional nine founders actually existed, most scholars are of the opinion that these nine men existed in some form, although their exact roles are uncertain. Following is a list of the nine founders, each of whom is known exclusively by his nom de guerre. (NB: This material could very well show up on your final exam!)
日砸 (Ri Za): The leader of the Wu-Tang Clan, Ri Za (most often translated as “Sun Crusher” or “Sun Pulverizer,” a reference to his apocryphal statement “We will crush the invaders with the power of the sun”) was the main impetus behind the secret society’s creation. His leadership of the group was far from absolute; decisions were often made by committee. Yet he was clearly “first among equals,” as it were.
哥砸 (Ge Za): So named due to the fact that he was Ri Za’s older cousin (the character 哥 means “elder brother”). It is believed that Ge Za, perhaps resentful of the outsized influence that Ri Za held, chose his nom de guerre as a playful reminder that in some ways he was senior to the Wu-Tang Clan’s de facto leader.
谋人 (Mou Ren): “Stratagem Man,” or sometimes translated as “Method Man.” So named due to his role as the primary battlefield commander of the Wu-Tang Clan, and a reference to 谋功 (mou gong, or “Attack by Stratagem,” third chapter of The Art of War) (3).
瑞空 (Rui Kong): Usually translated as “Auspicious Sky.” (Note that older systems of transliteration often render Rui Kong as Raekwon). His exact role in the Wu-Tang Clan is uncertain and often disputed.
鬼脸杀手 (Guilian Shashou): Translated as “Ghost-Face Killer,” or sometimes as “Devil-Face Killer,” a reference to the Jurchen Qing, who were considered to be “Qing devils” (请鬼子) by the Wu-Tang Clan. Ghost-Face Killer is also considered by modern historians to be the greatest practitioner of 说诗唱 (shuoshichang, or “spoken poem-song”), a style of writing popularized by the Wu-Tang Clan. (More on this in the next lecture!)
查板 (Cha Ban): Usually translated as “Inspector of the Deck,” or “Deck Inspector.” A reference to his status as the commander and architect of the Wu-Tang Clan’s riverboat navy, and his supposed mania for keeping the deck of his boat spotless.
你道 (Ni Dao): Translated variously as “You are the Dao,” “You, Dao,” or archaically as “You God.” A notorious riddler, Ni Dao is reputed to have been a master of disguise and concealment.
屠杀师傅 (Tusha Shifu): Most commonly translated as “Master Killer.” A reference to Master Killer’s supposed status as an adept of martial arts and as the foremost practitioner of hand-to-hand combat among all the members of the Wu-Tang Clan.
老脏坏蛋 (Lao Zang Huaidan): Translated as “Old Filthy Scoundrel,” or alternatively as “Old Dirty Bastard.” Supposedly an itinerant hermit who refused to bathe, he was renowned for his erratic behavior and his ferocity in battle.
Ri Za, Ge Za, Stratagem Man, Rui Kong, Ghost-Face Killer, Inspector of the Deck, You Dao, Master Killer, and Old Filthy Scoundrel: they were the Wu-Tang Clan.
(Taken from:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/dis...bb48ae&t=157311
日砸 (Ri Za): The leader of the Wu-Tang Clan, Ri Za (most often translated as “Sun Crusher” or “Sun Pulverizer,” a reference to his apocryphal statement “We will crush the invaders with the power of the sun”) was the main impetus behind the secret society’s creation. His leadership of the group was far from absolute; decisions were often made by committee. Yet he was clearly “first among equals,” as it were.
哥砸 (Ge Za): So named due to the fact that he was Ri Za’s older cousin (the character 哥 means “elder brother”). It is believed that Ge Za, perhaps resentful of the outsized influence that Ri Za held, chose his nom de guerre as a playful reminder that in some ways he was senior to the Wu-Tang Clan’s de facto leader.
谋人 (Mou Ren): “Stratagem Man,” or sometimes translated as “Method Man.” So named due to his role as the primary battlefield commander of the Wu-Tang Clan, and a reference to 谋功 (mou gong, or “Attack by Stratagem,” third chapter of The Art of War) (3).
瑞空 (Rui Kong): Usually translated as “Auspicious Sky.” (Note that older systems of transliteration often render Rui Kong as Raekwon). His exact role in the Wu-Tang Clan is uncertain and often disputed.
鬼脸杀手 (Guilian Shashou): Translated as “Ghost-Face Killer,” or sometimes as “Devil-Face Killer,” a reference to the Jurchen Qing, who were considered to be “Qing devils” (请鬼子) by the Wu-Tang Clan. Ghost-Face Killer is also considered by modern historians to be the greatest practitioner of 说诗唱 (shuoshichang, or “spoken poem-song”), a style of writing popularized by the Wu-Tang Clan. (More on this in the next lecture!)
查板 (Cha Ban): Usually translated as “Inspector of the Deck,” or “Deck Inspector.” A reference to his status as the commander and architect of the Wu-Tang Clan’s riverboat navy, and his supposed mania for keeping the deck of his boat spotless.
你道 (Ni Dao): Translated variously as “You are the Dao,” “You, Dao,” or archaically as “You God.” A notorious riddler, Ni Dao is reputed to have been a master of disguise and concealment.
屠杀师傅 (Tusha Shifu): Most commonly translated as “Master Killer.” A reference to Master Killer’s supposed status as an adept of martial arts and as the foremost practitioner of hand-to-hand combat among all the members of the Wu-Tang Clan.
老脏坏蛋 (Lao Zang Huaidan): Translated as “Old Filthy Scoundrel,” or alternatively as “Old Dirty Bastard.” Supposedly an itinerant hermit who refused to bathe, he was renowned for his erratic behavior and his ferocity in battle.
Ri Za, Ge Za, Stratagem Man, Rui Kong, Ghost-Face Killer, Inspector of the Deck, You Dao, Master Killer, and Old Filthy Scoundrel: they were the Wu-Tang Clan.
(Taken from:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/dis...bb48ae&t=157311
Monday, September 13, 2010
Sociology
I've been noticing this very specific genus of female as I get older. Some characteristics they seem to have in common:
1) They are older, usually from early- to mid-forties.
2) They tend to tell long, self-referential stories, the tone of which is almost always self-pitying or self-congratulatory. If self-pitying, there is an unspoken invitation to regard them as terribly admirable or courageous for overcoming their almost unendurable difficulties. If self-congratulatory, there is a similarly fake air of modesty.
3) They reference their husband and/or children with a frequency that borders on compulsion-- like, say about once per sentence.
4) Any perceived criticism or hostility is met with exaggerated, wide-eyed incredulity. (They can't understand why you're attacking them so ferociously!)
5) They are usually found in adult-education or therapy groups, and there never seems to be more than one at a time in that group.
6) Any of the following: sighing before starting a sentence, talking too loudly, harsh or faked laughter at things that are mildly (or not at all) amusing, emotional pandering to authority figures, self-deprecation taken to an infuriating degree.
This type of person tends to scare me-- or if not the woman herself, then the unmistakable look in her eyes: that of frantic imprisonment, of forced good cheer. Just wondering if anyone else had noticed this.
1) They are older, usually from early- to mid-forties.
2) They tend to tell long, self-referential stories, the tone of which is almost always self-pitying or self-congratulatory. If self-pitying, there is an unspoken invitation to regard them as terribly admirable or courageous for overcoming their almost unendurable difficulties. If self-congratulatory, there is a similarly fake air of modesty.
3) They reference their husband and/or children with a frequency that borders on compulsion-- like, say about once per sentence.
4) Any perceived criticism or hostility is met with exaggerated, wide-eyed incredulity. (They can't understand why you're attacking them so ferociously!)
5) They are usually found in adult-education or therapy groups, and there never seems to be more than one at a time in that group.
6) Any of the following: sighing before starting a sentence, talking too loudly, harsh or faked laughter at things that are mildly (or not at all) amusing, emotional pandering to authority figures, self-deprecation taken to an infuriating degree.
This type of person tends to scare me-- or if not the woman herself, then the unmistakable look in her eyes: that of frantic imprisonment, of forced good cheer. Just wondering if anyone else had noticed this.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
An Old Feeling
Something very cleansing about waking before dawn and listening to music, waiting for the sun to come up. The knowledge that in a few hours, the city will be hot and crowded and busy-- but for now, the streets are cool, empty, and peacefully quiet.
Friday, September 3, 2010
It's Weird
What the hell is it about movies where Nicolas Cage plays addicted wrecks of men having some of the most erotic scenes of all cinema? I'm thinking specifically of the pool-side scene in Leaving Las Vegas where Elizabeth Shue pours liquor all over herself, and lately Port of Call: New Orleans where Fairuza Balk (of all people) appears wearing these... these boots. (She seems determined to activate all major segments of my brain, incidentally-- Return to Oz scared the piss out of me as a kid. Between fear and eros I don't know that there's much left).
Oh well. Anyway, Bad Lieutenant/Port of Call: New Orleans (or however the hell you're supposed to format that title) was, in my opinion, a really great movie and you should watch it if you ever feel like you have glands or scales or claws and you want to see that feeling translated into film.
Oh well. Anyway, Bad Lieutenant/Port of Call: New Orleans (or however the hell you're supposed to format that title) was, in my opinion, a really great movie and you should watch it if you ever feel like you have glands or scales or claws and you want to see that feeling translated into film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)