This one was a somewhat enjoyable read. Unfortunately all the morals and things in the book that I would normally blog on are religious things, which I refuse to blog on. I dislike any form of religion being inserted into anything involving education, particularly my education, and I especially despise Christianity, the religion that deliberately hindered the acquisition of knowledge with threats, assasinations, bribes, and other forms of corruption. In addition the supposedly "good" Christians have massacred millions, perhaps billions, of people throughout history simply because they didn't share the same beliefs and then said they were justified because they were doing "the will of god." I put the Holocaust on their death toll as well, since the religion Germany was trying to promote by slaughtering the Jews was Christianity, and so far as I know the Christian church didn't exactly oppose these actions.
Therefore I outright refuse to discuss the religious concepts discussed in this book in this blog, which is part of my schoolwork and thus part of my education. This might be slightly irrational or unreasonable, but I will in no way involve religion in my education, and that goes for all religions that exist today, even the ones I don't have any reason to loathe. The only exception I can think of is to talk about religions in a historical context, and that's not talking about the religion that's talking about history.
Moving on, the book was rather enjoyable when the religion is taken out of the picture. I found some parts funny and some parts to be ridiculous, but touching nonetheless. My only real complaint about the book (apart from the constant you know what) was that whenever Owen Meany speaks the writing is in all capital letters. Being accustomed to an all caps sentence indicating somebody was yelling and was angry and trying to pick a fight with me, the all caps sentences in the book inspired feelings of anger and frustration in me, even though I was aware that nobody was actually screaming or angry.
TAKE THIS SENTENCE FOR EXAMPLE, YOU PROBABLY THINK I'M SHOUTING AND AM ANGRY RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT, BUT DEEP DOWN THIS PROBABLY IRRITATES YOU IF YOU'RE USED TO CHATTING OR WRITING ON THE INTERNET. Logically processed the sentence simply is an indicator of Owen's strange voice, but regular people have half a brain that processes things logically and half a brain that doesn't. Those halves don't work in completely different worlds, they both play a role in processing information, so no matter how much you rationalize the all capital letter sentences, if you are used to all caps indicating anger and people yelling at you (and people screaming at you irritates you, which for most of you I'm sure it does) then you will involuntarily feel slightly irritated of angry. The book is jam packed with Owen Meany speaking in all capital letters, and it forced me to stop and let my logic oriented brain rationalize the information and calm me down. Seemingly stupid as it may be, I would have enjoyed the book more if the author had italicized the words or written them in a different font size or something other than hitting the caps lock button on the keyboard.
Well I would say more about the morals in the book, but now that I think about it I realize they were ALL religion based. So now that I have given at least a little material to think about after reading this post I think it would be a good time to call it quits for this blog post.
Sorry that I can't bring myself to ponder the merits of these religious morals, but the anger religions inspire in me is so great it borders on being irrational, despite my good reasons. So until next time farewell (the next one will be science based, so I'm sure it will turn out much better than this)!
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Gilgamesh-36
Another example of ancient literature that has persisted through time. However, this one introduced a theme that affected more than just literature, the quest for immortality.
Immortal, a strange word to try and wrap your mind around. Never aging, never dying, living forever, how can any mortal being comphrehend the implications of that? We mortals can't, and that's what makes the idea so intriging. That intrigue has persisted throughout history, in lliterature as well as other subjects.
Most notably, the pursuit of life everlasting has left it's mark on science. Alchemy, the practice of attempting to take one thing and transmute it into another. Most people believe the main objective that alchemists pursued was the ability to turn lead into gold. Ignoring the fact that succesfully doing so would make gold essentially worthless, the actual goal of alchemy was a little less materialistic.
Alchemy was researched in the hope of creating the Philosopher's stone, a substance that could, in theory, provide immortality to whomever possesed it. Alchemists never succeeded in this endevor of course, if they had we'd be studying alchemy, not physics and biology and the like. However this shows how the pursuit of immortality shaped the world as we know it
Today alchemy is generally written off as superstitious nonsense, and those who used to practice it are thought to be insane, ignorant, or just plain dumb. In reality though, alchemists were at the cutting edge of science at the time, they essentially invented the scientific process we use today in modern science. Without that where would science be today? Take that idea a bit further, without the science we have today where would we be technolgically? Then ask, without our technology where would WE be today?
So in a sense every bit of scientific knowledge we have today stems from alchemy, which stems from the pursuit of eternal life, which is first demonstrated in writing in Gilgamesh. I've gone through one subject so far, and this immortality thing has already taken a central role in the development of the modern world. What would we be able to conclude if we did a solid investigation of how this theme affected history? Surely some rich and powerful people got the idea that they'd like to live forever, perhaps those people ruled nations and invaded other nations to gain the knowledge of immortality they thought was there. That speculation has no actual research behind it, but I bet you can see how that could be a very realistic scenario.
The pursuit of immortality isn't quite finished with humanity yet. Just yesterday I looked in on a TV show that was talking about discoveries scientists have made that may be setting us down the path to eternal life. The part I saw described a discovery that I had learned about in a podcast quite a while back (I'm guessing about half a year.) that had progressed quite beyond what I had heard off back then. Before the discovery had only been applied to simple creatures such as worms, in this show they had applied it to mice, quite a step up from worms in biological complexity. So humans are still driven by the pursuit of life unending, we're just a lot more advanced in our methods of pursuing it.
Gilgamesh is the oldest written epic poem in existance, and is the first story based on this concept we have found in writing. In light of this, it is impossible to argue that this story is unimportant.
On a completely unrelated note, alchemists might have been on to something with that transmutation concept. Everything is made up of the same atoms, which all fall into the same periodic table of elements. So you could, in theory, take the atoms of one thing, deconstruct them into their base form of protons and electrons and the like, and then subsequently reconstruct them into anything else of equal mass. You certainly can't do it with fancy circles and arcane writings on the floor of a basement with no modern technology or science, but with science and technology the way it is... Well it's a lot more realistic than it sounds. To think of the implications of being able to transmute substances into other substances, nonrenewable resources like oil could be supplemented with renewable resources transmuted into them. Economies could be stableized with secret addition of transmuted gold to the nation's treasury. It's an interesting thought to say the least.
Well now that I have gone off on a tangent and explained in detail how this classic has persisted through time I think it would be a good idea to wrap up this post. So until next time, goodbye!
Immortal, a strange word to try and wrap your mind around. Never aging, never dying, living forever, how can any mortal being comphrehend the implications of that? We mortals can't, and that's what makes the idea so intriging. That intrigue has persisted throughout history, in lliterature as well as other subjects.
Most notably, the pursuit of life everlasting has left it's mark on science. Alchemy, the practice of attempting to take one thing and transmute it into another. Most people believe the main objective that alchemists pursued was the ability to turn lead into gold. Ignoring the fact that succesfully doing so would make gold essentially worthless, the actual goal of alchemy was a little less materialistic.
Alchemy was researched in the hope of creating the Philosopher's stone, a substance that could, in theory, provide immortality to whomever possesed it. Alchemists never succeeded in this endevor of course, if they had we'd be studying alchemy, not physics and biology and the like. However this shows how the pursuit of immortality shaped the world as we know it
Today alchemy is generally written off as superstitious nonsense, and those who used to practice it are thought to be insane, ignorant, or just plain dumb. In reality though, alchemists were at the cutting edge of science at the time, they essentially invented the scientific process we use today in modern science. Without that where would science be today? Take that idea a bit further, without the science we have today where would we be technolgically? Then ask, without our technology where would WE be today?
So in a sense every bit of scientific knowledge we have today stems from alchemy, which stems from the pursuit of eternal life, which is first demonstrated in writing in Gilgamesh. I've gone through one subject so far, and this immortality thing has already taken a central role in the development of the modern world. What would we be able to conclude if we did a solid investigation of how this theme affected history? Surely some rich and powerful people got the idea that they'd like to live forever, perhaps those people ruled nations and invaded other nations to gain the knowledge of immortality they thought was there. That speculation has no actual research behind it, but I bet you can see how that could be a very realistic scenario.
The pursuit of immortality isn't quite finished with humanity yet. Just yesterday I looked in on a TV show that was talking about discoveries scientists have made that may be setting us down the path to eternal life. The part I saw described a discovery that I had learned about in a podcast quite a while back (I'm guessing about half a year.) that had progressed quite beyond what I had heard off back then. Before the discovery had only been applied to simple creatures such as worms, in this show they had applied it to mice, quite a step up from worms in biological complexity. So humans are still driven by the pursuit of life unending, we're just a lot more advanced in our methods of pursuing it.
Gilgamesh is the oldest written epic poem in existance, and is the first story based on this concept we have found in writing. In light of this, it is impossible to argue that this story is unimportant.
On a completely unrelated note, alchemists might have been on to something with that transmutation concept. Everything is made up of the same atoms, which all fall into the same periodic table of elements. So you could, in theory, take the atoms of one thing, deconstruct them into their base form of protons and electrons and the like, and then subsequently reconstruct them into anything else of equal mass. You certainly can't do it with fancy circles and arcane writings on the floor of a basement with no modern technology or science, but with science and technology the way it is... Well it's a lot more realistic than it sounds. To think of the implications of being able to transmute substances into other substances, nonrenewable resources like oil could be supplemented with renewable resources transmuted into them. Economies could be stableized with secret addition of transmuted gold to the nation's treasury. It's an interesting thought to say the least.
Well now that I have gone off on a tangent and explained in detail how this classic has persisted through time I think it would be a good idea to wrap up this post. So until next time, goodbye!
Thursday, September 15, 2011
The Illiad/Oddessy-37
This one I had practically read already, I used to be obssesed with Greek mythology. So I had heard of most of the things from this out of context, reading them in their original form was interesting though
It's impossible to say that this book isn't a classic, it's so well known that almost everyone has heard of it, and many have read it. As for why it's a classic, well I suppose it is for largely the same reasons as Beowolf.
The stories themselves are interesting though, religious myths come from humanity trying to explain the things around them that they don't understand by attributing them to the gods. The siege of some city named Troy would hardly seem to be something unexplainable, wars aren't something you need gods to explain. Unless some unbelievable things happened in this siege. The fact that it lasted 10 years certainly seems unbeleivable, name one city that has ever had the provisions to feed it's entire population for 10 years straight without being able to resupply. I bet you can't, even with modern technology making it easier to store food for long periods of time, it's simply preposterous.
To add to that the battles that are described are ripe with divine intervention. Certainly some amazing things must have been happening to invoke the names of all these meddling gods at once. What could possibly have inspired these myths? Certainly these things couldn't actually have happened, but then where is the basis for these fantastic tales of this old religion?
I don't remember any details, but I vaugely remember this topic being covered on the History Channel, where they had found a city that resembled what might have once been Troy. It was patchy guesswork at best I assume, but I never watched the program. It does mean that there are researchers who are curious about what this book was based on though, so it isn't just me drawing these conclusions.
Well that's all I have to say about this one, so farewell!
It's impossible to say that this book isn't a classic, it's so well known that almost everyone has heard of it, and many have read it. As for why it's a classic, well I suppose it is for largely the same reasons as Beowolf.
The stories themselves are interesting though, religious myths come from humanity trying to explain the things around them that they don't understand by attributing them to the gods. The siege of some city named Troy would hardly seem to be something unexplainable, wars aren't something you need gods to explain. Unless some unbelievable things happened in this siege. The fact that it lasted 10 years certainly seems unbeleivable, name one city that has ever had the provisions to feed it's entire population for 10 years straight without being able to resupply. I bet you can't, even with modern technology making it easier to store food for long periods of time, it's simply preposterous.
To add to that the battles that are described are ripe with divine intervention. Certainly some amazing things must have been happening to invoke the names of all these meddling gods at once. What could possibly have inspired these myths? Certainly these things couldn't actually have happened, but then where is the basis for these fantastic tales of this old religion?
I don't remember any details, but I vaugely remember this topic being covered on the History Channel, where they had found a city that resembled what might have once been Troy. It was patchy guesswork at best I assume, but I never watched the program. It does mean that there are researchers who are curious about what this book was based on though, so it isn't just me drawing these conclusions.
Well that's all I have to say about this one, so farewell!
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
E=MC squared-38
Finally, a book that explains Einstein's famous equation in plain English. It's about time somebody came up with that idea.
The book breaks down the equation into small parts and explains each of them in detail. Even the = sign has a brief history included. I always wondered how the = sign came to be the universally accepted sign in mathematics.
In addition to breaking down how the formula works, the book also gives a historical account of how Einstein came up with the formula, how it was accepted, and how it affected history.
I found it interesting that Einstein didn't actually create most of his most famous formula, he simply took the research of past scientists and put it together in a new way, that nobody else had bothered (or dared) to think of. It was rather like a simple math equation, 2+2, some scientists created one of the 2s and other scientists came up with the other 2, but none of them decided to throw in the + sign and get the result of 4. I blame the Church's tyrannical rule over every aspect of life back in those times. To go against the teachings of the church was to volunteer for a long and tiresome battle that usually ended in defeat and occasionally assasination. So these researchers managed to get their findings accepted and won the battle against the church, but didn't pursue that research further.
Einstein was simply the scientist that "threw in the + sign" as I put it, and the "4" he came up with was his formula. So a large portion of the credit for the formula goes to his predecessors. Not to undermine Einstein's greatness, he did, after all, come up with the links between the researcher's results, and that takes a high level of intellegence. In addition most science builds upon discoveries made in the past, so it's still fair to say Einstein's formula is his own.
I was also struck by the fact that one of the world's greatest scientific discovries is made, and what is the first thing we do with it? We create a bomb and blow up two cities and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees a problem with that. Of all the things we could have used that discovery for, we use it to kill our own kind. I'm no pacifist, but that seems fundamentally wrong to me. Even more disturbing was that Einstien himself sent a letter to the president suggesting that his formula be used to create a bomb. So even scientists who should be seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge are instinctively thinking of ways to kill human life with their discoveries. An earth shattering thought for those of us who are convinced that human nature is anything but evil, and a confirmation of the obvious to those of us who already believe that humanity is evil.
Being somewhere down the middle of those two viewpoints this thought doesn't sit well with me, but it doesn't surprise me either, which is a fact that also doesn't sit well with me. I'd love to believe that human nature is good at heart, but the more I see of this sad world we live in the more I am forced to accept that this is not the case...
The book breaks down the equation into small parts and explains each of them in detail. Even the = sign has a brief history included. I always wondered how the = sign came to be the universally accepted sign in mathematics.
In addition to breaking down how the formula works, the book also gives a historical account of how Einstein came up with the formula, how it was accepted, and how it affected history.
I found it interesting that Einstein didn't actually create most of his most famous formula, he simply took the research of past scientists and put it together in a new way, that nobody else had bothered (or dared) to think of. It was rather like a simple math equation, 2+2, some scientists created one of the 2s and other scientists came up with the other 2, but none of them decided to throw in the + sign and get the result of 4. I blame the Church's tyrannical rule over every aspect of life back in those times. To go against the teachings of the church was to volunteer for a long and tiresome battle that usually ended in defeat and occasionally assasination. So these researchers managed to get their findings accepted and won the battle against the church, but didn't pursue that research further.
Einstein was simply the scientist that "threw in the + sign" as I put it, and the "4" he came up with was his formula. So a large portion of the credit for the formula goes to his predecessors. Not to undermine Einstein's greatness, he did, after all, come up with the links between the researcher's results, and that takes a high level of intellegence. In addition most science builds upon discoveries made in the past, so it's still fair to say Einstein's formula is his own.
I was also struck by the fact that one of the world's greatest scientific discovries is made, and what is the first thing we do with it? We create a bomb and blow up two cities and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees a problem with that. Of all the things we could have used that discovery for, we use it to kill our own kind. I'm no pacifist, but that seems fundamentally wrong to me. Even more disturbing was that Einstien himself sent a letter to the president suggesting that his formula be used to create a bomb. So even scientists who should be seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge are instinctively thinking of ways to kill human life with their discoveries. An earth shattering thought for those of us who are convinced that human nature is anything but evil, and a confirmation of the obvious to those of us who already believe that humanity is evil.
Being somewhere down the middle of those two viewpoints this thought doesn't sit well with me, but it doesn't surprise me either, which is a fact that also doesn't sit well with me. I'd love to believe that human nature is good at heart, but the more I see of this sad world we live in the more I am forced to accept that this is not the case...
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Candide-39
I'm not sure exactly what to say about this one, not only is this an old story, but it was originally in another language. So it's like watching a foreign Shakespeare play and trying to read the poorly translated english subtitles. As a universal rule translations never turn out as well as the original, and the formating is almost always messed up due to grammer differences.
So while the book was readable, the format was strange and distracting to me, and that made it hard to focus on the concepts presented.
From what I was able to make out despite my distraction, the book is a mockery of optimism as it was back in Voltaire's time. Optimism was the belief that this was the best of all possible worlds and everything that is... is as it should be.
The characters in Candide are initially nobles in England who are pretty well off and have no real issues to speak of at the time. So it's easy for them to embrace the concept of optimism.
When Candide is kicked out of his home and exposed to the real world he see many things showing that the world is NOT all good and perfect, quite the opposite in fact. His noble attitude and ignorance of how things work in reality lands him in hot water frequently.
The other characters in the book who started off well are also exposed to the cruelties of the world when the castle they live in is attacked and overrun. So now all the characters in the book are given a reality check. The world does not fit into the idea of optimism very well at all, if this were the best of all possible worlds woe be to people living in other worlds.
The book to me seems to be a slap in the face to the well off nobles of Voltaire's time who hoarded their wealth while other people suffered. It seems to accuse them of being ignorant and complacent, as if they think that there are no problems in the world simply because they have no real problems.
Well it wouldn't surprise me if that's how nobles acted back then, they were born into wealth and power and never experienced anything else, so they wouldn't know about what the common people suffered through. It's pretty much the same thing today, only now it's worse because the people in power come from the common people and DO know about our problems, but now that their rich and powerful they don't care.
There might be other implications in this book, but I did not see them. So I'm gonna wrap up now. Goodbye until next time!
So while the book was readable, the format was strange and distracting to me, and that made it hard to focus on the concepts presented.
From what I was able to make out despite my distraction, the book is a mockery of optimism as it was back in Voltaire's time. Optimism was the belief that this was the best of all possible worlds and everything that is... is as it should be.
The characters in Candide are initially nobles in England who are pretty well off and have no real issues to speak of at the time. So it's easy for them to embrace the concept of optimism.
When Candide is kicked out of his home and exposed to the real world he see many things showing that the world is NOT all good and perfect, quite the opposite in fact. His noble attitude and ignorance of how things work in reality lands him in hot water frequently.
The other characters in the book who started off well are also exposed to the cruelties of the world when the castle they live in is attacked and overrun. So now all the characters in the book are given a reality check. The world does not fit into the idea of optimism very well at all, if this were the best of all possible worlds woe be to people living in other worlds.
The book to me seems to be a slap in the face to the well off nobles of Voltaire's time who hoarded their wealth while other people suffered. It seems to accuse them of being ignorant and complacent, as if they think that there are no problems in the world simply because they have no real problems.
Well it wouldn't surprise me if that's how nobles acted back then, they were born into wealth and power and never experienced anything else, so they wouldn't know about what the common people suffered through. It's pretty much the same thing today, only now it's worse because the people in power come from the common people and DO know about our problems, but now that their rich and powerful they don't care.
There might be other implications in this book, but I did not see them. So I'm gonna wrap up now. Goodbye until next time!
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Born on a Blue Day-40
Another memoir of a person with asperger's. Still interesting, but I think need a change of pace now.
This book was about Daniel Tammet, who falls a little more towards the deeper end of the asperger's spectrum mentioned in previous books. But he also has landed close enough on the right end of the scale to be independent, and he has, like other asperger cases mild enough to be independent, is a savant.
In this case however, savant may not be a sufficient term to describe Daniel Tammet's abilities. He not only has the savant abilities that asperger's is thought to bring out, but he also has an ability called synesthesia. This syndrome links words and numbers to feelings and colors in his mind. The word Wednesday, for example, is blue to him, as is the number 9. The title of the book is derived from the fact that to Daniel the date January 31st, 1979 is blue, hence "Born on a Blue Day."
Daniel Tammet's synesthesia makes him a mathmatical and a lingual savant. He can solve complex mathmatical equations mentally in a process that he tries to desribe in the book that I couldn't explain very well without quoting the entire section he describes it in. In addition, languages come to him easily, so easily in fact, that he can begin learning a language and have a respectable cnversation with you in that language a week later (this was proven in an experiment where he tried to learn Icelandic in one week while being recorded the whole time, he succeeded).
On the other side of his asperger's syndrome, Daniel Tamet has several quirks that set him apart from normal people. He has a complusive need for routine and order, he eats the same amount of food for breakfast every day, drinks tea at set times during the day, and can't leave the house without counting how many articles of clothing he is wearing. Also the sound of a toothbrush scratching against teeth causes him physical pain, and other noises are simillarly uncomfortable.
Strange as these things are I can kind of relate. I follow a routine each day, and when I'm done with it and something gets added that I had not accounted for in the routine so far I get very annoyed, partially because of the work that I still need to do before relaxing for the rest of the day, but also possibly because it upsets the order of things I'm doing that day. I also do my chores in the same order every day, and often forget to do some of them if circumstances force me to do them out of that order.
As for the sounds, I have found that the sound of something scratching against the material used to make an image appear different from various angles is incredibly uncomfortable to me. I wouldn't call it pain, but I cringe a little whenever I hear that sound. I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head, but I bet there are other sounds that grind my nerves in a simillar way.
I can also understand how the synesthesia works. I would not say I have it myself, or at least not at the level he does, but I find that certain words, or specific sounds in words, seem somehow... better to me than others. I hesitate because I can't really describe it. I also find that when I am trying to solve problems mentally I can often make it easier by picturing shapes that somehow fit together and form the answer in my head. Again I can't really explain how it works, and it doesn't always work.
One example of how the shapes help me process some things appears in my karate class. My current pattern that I need to master consists of 19 movements, normally I would never be able to memorize that many movements in the correct order while memorizing all the little details I need to watch in order to perform each move correctly, at least not without an insane amount of practice. However when I was trying to learn the movements I looked at them in my mind from what is simillar to a bird's eye view, and I saw that I was moving in the shape of an hourglass for all but the last 3 movements. For some people this would have no signifigance, but for me it allowed me to memorize all 19 moves practically on the first try (though the fine details of the moves still needed work, I'm not saying I mastered the pattern instantly, I just memorized it).
I can't provide examples other than that, because it's so spontanious that I can't pin down any other times where I used a simillar technique.
So the book was particularly interesting to me since I could relate in so many ways. Yet another enjoyable read.
A spontanious thought before I post this, I wonder how easily Daniel Tammet would learn a language that has a different aplhabet such as Japanese or Chinese. Since the letters themselves would be different it may have an effect of the synesthesia that enables Daniel to learn other languages so easily. based on how he describes the process it seems that his connections to the letters is a critical part of his learning the language. If the letters are new and unrecognizable I would hypothesize that it would be much harder for Daniel to learn the language.
Now that I have that out of my system I bid you all adieu until next time
This book was about Daniel Tammet, who falls a little more towards the deeper end of the asperger's spectrum mentioned in previous books. But he also has landed close enough on the right end of the scale to be independent, and he has, like other asperger cases mild enough to be independent, is a savant.
In this case however, savant may not be a sufficient term to describe Daniel Tammet's abilities. He not only has the savant abilities that asperger's is thought to bring out, but he also has an ability called synesthesia. This syndrome links words and numbers to feelings and colors in his mind. The word Wednesday, for example, is blue to him, as is the number 9. The title of the book is derived from the fact that to Daniel the date January 31st, 1979 is blue, hence "Born on a Blue Day."
Daniel Tammet's synesthesia makes him a mathmatical and a lingual savant. He can solve complex mathmatical equations mentally in a process that he tries to desribe in the book that I couldn't explain very well without quoting the entire section he describes it in. In addition, languages come to him easily, so easily in fact, that he can begin learning a language and have a respectable cnversation with you in that language a week later (this was proven in an experiment where he tried to learn Icelandic in one week while being recorded the whole time, he succeeded).
On the other side of his asperger's syndrome, Daniel Tamet has several quirks that set him apart from normal people. He has a complusive need for routine and order, he eats the same amount of food for breakfast every day, drinks tea at set times during the day, and can't leave the house without counting how many articles of clothing he is wearing. Also the sound of a toothbrush scratching against teeth causes him physical pain, and other noises are simillarly uncomfortable.
Strange as these things are I can kind of relate. I follow a routine each day, and when I'm done with it and something gets added that I had not accounted for in the routine so far I get very annoyed, partially because of the work that I still need to do before relaxing for the rest of the day, but also possibly because it upsets the order of things I'm doing that day. I also do my chores in the same order every day, and often forget to do some of them if circumstances force me to do them out of that order.
As for the sounds, I have found that the sound of something scratching against the material used to make an image appear different from various angles is incredibly uncomfortable to me. I wouldn't call it pain, but I cringe a little whenever I hear that sound. I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head, but I bet there are other sounds that grind my nerves in a simillar way.
I can also understand how the synesthesia works. I would not say I have it myself, or at least not at the level he does, but I find that certain words, or specific sounds in words, seem somehow... better to me than others. I hesitate because I can't really describe it. I also find that when I am trying to solve problems mentally I can often make it easier by picturing shapes that somehow fit together and form the answer in my head. Again I can't really explain how it works, and it doesn't always work.
One example of how the shapes help me process some things appears in my karate class. My current pattern that I need to master consists of 19 movements, normally I would never be able to memorize that many movements in the correct order while memorizing all the little details I need to watch in order to perform each move correctly, at least not without an insane amount of practice. However when I was trying to learn the movements I looked at them in my mind from what is simillar to a bird's eye view, and I saw that I was moving in the shape of an hourglass for all but the last 3 movements. For some people this would have no signifigance, but for me it allowed me to memorize all 19 moves practically on the first try (though the fine details of the moves still needed work, I'm not saying I mastered the pattern instantly, I just memorized it).
I can't provide examples other than that, because it's so spontanious that I can't pin down any other times where I used a simillar technique.
So the book was particularly interesting to me since I could relate in so many ways. Yet another enjoyable read.
A spontanious thought before I post this, I wonder how easily Daniel Tammet would learn a language that has a different aplhabet such as Japanese or Chinese. Since the letters themselves would be different it may have an effect of the synesthesia that enables Daniel to learn other languages so easily. based on how he describes the process it seems that his connections to the letters is a critical part of his learning the language. If the letters are new and unrecognizable I would hypothesize that it would be much harder for Daniel to learn the language.
Now that I have that out of my system I bid you all adieu until next time
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Beowolf-41
I read this story that is considered a classic among classics, and I didn't see anything extrodinary about it. it seemed like a run of the mill hero vs monster strory. This put me off writing a blog post on it for a while, but I'm going to write it now before I forget about the book and have to re-read it
I could not imagine why this story was so highly regarded, so I did some research on it. I learned that this is the first epic poem written in English that we have discovered. So it marks the beginning of English literature. So I guess it wins points for blazing a trail for others to follow.
On further thought about how Beowolf seems like a basic hero fights monster story, and I realized that since every other book that has that type of theme is, in some small way, based off Beowolf. So the fact that this story doesn't have any of the other twists or surprises of other stories is irrelevant, since this is the foundation on which those books are built.
So beowolf itself isn't impressive to me, but the fact that it spawned all of the books I now read and enjoy today is worthy of praise.
I could not imagine why this story was so highly regarded, so I did some research on it. I learned that this is the first epic poem written in English that we have discovered. So it marks the beginning of English literature. So I guess it wins points for blazing a trail for others to follow.
On further thought about how Beowolf seems like a basic hero fights monster story, and I realized that since every other book that has that type of theme is, in some small way, based off Beowolf. So the fact that this story doesn't have any of the other twists or surprises of other stories is irrelevant, since this is the foundation on which those books are built.
So beowolf itself isn't impressive to me, but the fact that it spawned all of the books I now read and enjoy today is worthy of praise.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Alice's Adventures Underground-42 to go
Yes I am aware that the commonly known title is "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland." But The original story is titled "Alice's Adventures Underground" and that is what I read
I found the book rather confusing, reading it was like stepping into the mind of a madman and trying to see everything from a sane point of view. Practically impossible to do and rather infuriating.
Supposedly the story was created as a fairy tale made up on the spot for the author's niece or some other young relative over the course of several trips to a lake. Which largely explains the sporratic and confusing nature of the story. Reading the stories in their original form when they were made up spontanously on several occasions makes them inherriently confusing, since they wouldn't have been created with any sort of real plot in mind. To make things worse the character Alice was far from helpful, and was quite ridiculous, and seemingly insane. Her talking to herself and sporratic trains of thought matched the rest of the book in their ability to confuse and hinder comprehension
I was also thrown by the difference between the original story and the story most people have seen. I couldn't find any mention of the Cheshire Cat, or the Mad Hatter, or many of the other characters associated with "Alice's Adventures In Wonderland."
There was one moral I was able to extract from the insanity. In her interactions with various creatures Alice says things that, to her, are perfectly innocent, but are actually rather insulting or disturbing to the creature she is speaking to (talking about her cat to a rat for instance).
The same thing can happen with people in real life, if you don't think carefuly about what you are saying you could inadvertantly insult someone without even realizing it. Not the most earth-shattering moral I've encountered so far, but considering how confounding the story was I'm proud of my being able to extract any sane moral from it.
Perhaps reading the story that was originally published and made famous would be in order, since the original stories were only released after "Alice's Adventures In Wonderland" had been out for some time. If the more popular version became so famous I would assume it makes a little more sense, and perhaps I would then be able to enjoy the story a little more. However, as of right now I walk away from this book with my head spinning.
I found the book rather confusing, reading it was like stepping into the mind of a madman and trying to see everything from a sane point of view. Practically impossible to do and rather infuriating.
Supposedly the story was created as a fairy tale made up on the spot for the author's niece or some other young relative over the course of several trips to a lake. Which largely explains the sporratic and confusing nature of the story. Reading the stories in their original form when they were made up spontanously on several occasions makes them inherriently confusing, since they wouldn't have been created with any sort of real plot in mind. To make things worse the character Alice was far from helpful, and was quite ridiculous, and seemingly insane. Her talking to herself and sporratic trains of thought matched the rest of the book in their ability to confuse and hinder comprehension
I was also thrown by the difference between the original story and the story most people have seen. I couldn't find any mention of the Cheshire Cat, or the Mad Hatter, or many of the other characters associated with "Alice's Adventures In Wonderland."
There was one moral I was able to extract from the insanity. In her interactions with various creatures Alice says things that, to her, are perfectly innocent, but are actually rather insulting or disturbing to the creature she is speaking to (talking about her cat to a rat for instance).
The same thing can happen with people in real life, if you don't think carefuly about what you are saying you could inadvertantly insult someone without even realizing it. Not the most earth-shattering moral I've encountered so far, but considering how confounding the story was I'm proud of my being able to extract any sane moral from it.
Perhaps reading the story that was originally published and made famous would be in order, since the original stories were only released after "Alice's Adventures In Wonderland" had been out for some time. If the more popular version became so famous I would assume it makes a little more sense, and perhaps I would then be able to enjoy the story a little more. However, as of right now I walk away from this book with my head spinning.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)