Blogger over at MaliceTowardsNone has a post linking to a fantastic paper gallery of works done by artist Peter Callesen. Some of the pieces are amazing, I highly recommend checking out his site here.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Paper Art
Blogger over at MaliceTowardsNone has a post linking to a fantastic paper gallery of works done by artist Peter Callesen. Some of the pieces are amazing, I highly recommend checking out his site here.
Flying In Your Birthday Suit
RANKFURT (Reuters) — German nudists will be able to start their holidays early by stripping off on the plane if they take up a new offer from an eastern German travel firm. Travel agency OssiUrlaub.de said it would start taking bookings from Friday for a trial nudist day trip from the eastern German town of Erfurt to the popular Baltic Sea resort of Usedom, planned for July 5 and costing $735.
Link
DBS Triggers Past Memories
Neurophilosophy has an interesting post about a serendipitous discovery made by some Canadian neurosurgeons which has pretty interesting potentials
Link:
Link:
Canadian surgeons have made a serendipitous discovery. While using deep brain stimulation to try suppressing the appetite of a morbidly obese patient, they inadvertently evoked in the patient vivid autobiographical memories of an event that had taken place more than 30 years previously. They also found that the electrical stimulation improved the patient's performance on associative memory tasks.
These unexpected findings raise the possibility that deep brain stimulation could be used to treat patients with Alzheimer's Disease, and the research team is now beginning a small clinical trial involving 6 patients who have been diagnosed with that condition.
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an invasive technique involving the implantation of an array of electrodes into the brain. The implant, which is usually attached by thin wires to a small battery which is itself implanted under the skin near the collarbone, acts as a " brain pacemaker" - it emits regular electrical pulses, which activate or inhibit specific regions of the brain.
Belated Birthday Wishes
If you are one of the people (among many) who didn't get me a birthday present this year than here is something you can buy me, thus vindicating yourself:
http://www.flixxy.com/personal-helicopter.htm
http://www.flixxy.com/personal-helicopter.htm
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Agamemnon Analysis
Well Im taking a Classics course this semester and I quickly realized I was in way over my head, as the majority of the class seems to be familiar with ancient greek, so that our class discussions revolved around disputed translations which are accused of being -mis, but Im going to tough it out and see how I fair, cause I love the subject matter. Anyways we were asked to write a 500 word post on an assigned passage and here's the rough draft I have thus far. Comments and criticisms are welcome. Post in the comments section below. Thanks!
There is, I think, a grace that comes by violence from the gods
seated upon the dread bench of the helmsman.
These two lines, which appear early on in Agamemnon, the first play of the Oresteia trilogy, are extraordinarily pertinent to our overall understanding and interpretation of this particular play, because they simultaneously resurrect the underlying theme of justice and reflect the semantic ambiguities, which are so prevalent throughout the play. We are even warranted in thinking of this passage as a key, permitting us to enter one of the rooms—one of the interpretations—that has been built up after a careful and exhaustive study of this play. We must, however, be guarded against and self-critical towards the themes, meanings, and interpretations we extract from the play, because our modernist lens often distorts the true and essential character of the play—with regards to the historical context it was originally written and meant for. That said it is necessary to first dissect the passage into two significant parts, before we move onto an overall and overarching interpretation and explanation of what the play is about: both explicitly and implicitly.
The first important part of the passage that needs to be addressed is found in the string of words 'a grace that comes by violence'. This phrase immediately triggers a lexical hiccup in our minds, since 'grace', which roughly defined is an endowment of fortune/favor, usually by divine entities, is not commonly associated with coming about through the means of violence and calamity. In Agamemnon, however, this idea of suffering being for the betterment of mankind is a repeated conviction. In lines 176-178 it is suggested that it is the ignorant who, having disobeyed the gods' will, become disfavorably familiar with suffering—the gods' preferred method of teaching man a lesson, to hopefully be learned from. “Justice always defeats Hybris in the end”, says Hesiod in a passage from Works and Days (218f.), and goes on to say, “it is only the foolish man who learns by suffering.” Thus, as Hugh Lloyd-Jones puts it, in summation “the wise man, it is implied, understands that it is foolish to defy the will of Zeus; the foolish man who fails to understand when he is warned, will learn only when disaster teaches him” (p. 38). If Lloyd-Jones is correct in his interpretation of this passage—and I will concede that he is, based on the grounds of his own scholarly dedication to and familiarity with the topic in general and this play in particular, of which I, confessedly, lack excessively—then it is this concept of justice that we must base the rest of our analysis of the play upon. Out of constraint of space I will just briefly mention one important question that this concept of justice contributes to and complexifies.
One of the central questions that is often asked by scholars who have read the play concerns Agamemnon's guilt, more pointedly, is Agemnon responsible for the fate that befalls him, or is he merely an ill-fated puppet helplessly serving and fulfilling the will of the gods? If Lloyd-Jones' interpretation of Aeschylus' concept of justice is correct, that suffering/misfortune occurs by disobeying the will of the gods, then it would seem Agamemnon suffered needlessly, and was merely a sacrificial pawn in the gods' or, more accurately, Zeus' divine strategy. Is this, then, the correct interpretation of the interaction between divine and human justice? That the former trumps the interests of the latter, for the goodness and ultimate betterment of the latter? It is difficult to say, with confidence, that this is the case, and I unfortunately do not have the luxury of space to elaborate further on what my answer to this particular question is.
The second part of the passage which requires our attention (and is pertinently related to the first part and certainly contributes to our overall understanding of that part) is in the entire second line: 'seated upon the dread bench of the helmsman'. According to our author, the “helmsman's bench” is a metaphor for “the seat of power”, which implies that the gods are in charge of the reigns of the universe and thus, to borrow a metaphor from Aeschylus, are also in control of the (motivating) bit that rests in the mouths of man (and as the play reveals, man and woman alike are only all too eager to place the responsibility of their actions, decisions, and behaviors into the laps of the gods). But doesn't this conflict with the notion mentioned earlier that it is the fools who suffer whilst the wise men prosper? It would seem so, for if the gods are the captains behind the helm of destiny, what effect, if any, do the spontaneous decisions, which arise from man's conviction of free will, play on the outcomes of his ultimate fate?
These are difficult questions to answer and are made even more enigmatic by the limited means we have available to aid us in our endeavor to try and address these questions with the subtle clues that we uncover. Perhaps the reason there seems to be no clear cut answer to our questions is owed to the fact that the ancient Greeks themselves found these questions as puzzling as we ourselves do and didn't have answers, so much as opinions. My knowledge of ancient Greek culture is extremely limited, but perhaps they were just as unsure about the dynamic interaction between a man's fate and a gods' will, as we ourselves are when we try to uncover how, exactly, they saw and interpreted this dynamic. If this is indeed the case then the pursuit of answers to these deep seeded questions is a frivolous affair, because the answers we seek are, ironically, the very questions that we are asking when we read plays such as the Agamemnon (space provided to recollect the tatters of your mind which has now been blown).
There is, I think, a grace that comes by violence from the gods
seated upon the dread bench of the helmsman.
These two lines, which appear early on in Agamemnon, the first play of the Oresteia trilogy, are extraordinarily pertinent to our overall understanding and interpretation of this particular play, because they simultaneously resurrect the underlying theme of justice and reflect the semantic ambiguities, which are so prevalent throughout the play. We are even warranted in thinking of this passage as a key, permitting us to enter one of the rooms—one of the interpretations—that has been built up after a careful and exhaustive study of this play. We must, however, be guarded against and self-critical towards the themes, meanings, and interpretations we extract from the play, because our modernist lens often distorts the true and essential character of the play—with regards to the historical context it was originally written and meant for. That said it is necessary to first dissect the passage into two significant parts, before we move onto an overall and overarching interpretation and explanation of what the play is about: both explicitly and implicitly.
The first important part of the passage that needs to be addressed is found in the string of words 'a grace that comes by violence'. This phrase immediately triggers a lexical hiccup in our minds, since 'grace', which roughly defined is an endowment of fortune/favor, usually by divine entities, is not commonly associated with coming about through the means of violence and calamity. In Agamemnon, however, this idea of suffering being for the betterment of mankind is a repeated conviction. In lines 176-178 it is suggested that it is the ignorant who, having disobeyed the gods' will, become disfavorably familiar with suffering—the gods' preferred method of teaching man a lesson, to hopefully be learned from. “Justice always defeats Hybris in the end”, says Hesiod in a passage from Works and Days (218f.), and goes on to say, “it is only the foolish man who learns by suffering.” Thus, as Hugh Lloyd-Jones puts it, in summation “the wise man, it is implied, understands that it is foolish to defy the will of Zeus; the foolish man who fails to understand when he is warned, will learn only when disaster teaches him” (p. 38). If Lloyd-Jones is correct in his interpretation of this passage—and I will concede that he is, based on the grounds of his own scholarly dedication to and familiarity with the topic in general and this play in particular, of which I, confessedly, lack excessively—then it is this concept of justice that we must base the rest of our analysis of the play upon. Out of constraint of space I will just briefly mention one important question that this concept of justice contributes to and complexifies.
One of the central questions that is often asked by scholars who have read the play concerns Agamemnon's guilt, more pointedly, is Agemnon responsible for the fate that befalls him, or is he merely an ill-fated puppet helplessly serving and fulfilling the will of the gods? If Lloyd-Jones' interpretation of Aeschylus' concept of justice is correct, that suffering/misfortune occurs by disobeying the will of the gods, then it would seem Agamemnon suffered needlessly, and was merely a sacrificial pawn in the gods' or, more accurately, Zeus' divine strategy. Is this, then, the correct interpretation of the interaction between divine and human justice? That the former trumps the interests of the latter, for the goodness and ultimate betterment of the latter? It is difficult to say, with confidence, that this is the case, and I unfortunately do not have the luxury of space to elaborate further on what my answer to this particular question is.
The second part of the passage which requires our attention (and is pertinently related to the first part and certainly contributes to our overall understanding of that part) is in the entire second line: 'seated upon the dread bench of the helmsman'. According to our author, the “helmsman's bench” is a metaphor for “the seat of power”, which implies that the gods are in charge of the reigns of the universe and thus, to borrow a metaphor from Aeschylus, are also in control of the (motivating) bit that rests in the mouths of man (and as the play reveals, man and woman alike are only all too eager to place the responsibility of their actions, decisions, and behaviors into the laps of the gods). But doesn't this conflict with the notion mentioned earlier that it is the fools who suffer whilst the wise men prosper? It would seem so, for if the gods are the captains behind the helm of destiny, what effect, if any, do the spontaneous decisions, which arise from man's conviction of free will, play on the outcomes of his ultimate fate?
These are difficult questions to answer and are made even more enigmatic by the limited means we have available to aid us in our endeavor to try and address these questions with the subtle clues that we uncover. Perhaps the reason there seems to be no clear cut answer to our questions is owed to the fact that the ancient Greeks themselves found these questions as puzzling as we ourselves do and didn't have answers, so much as opinions. My knowledge of ancient Greek culture is extremely limited, but perhaps they were just as unsure about the dynamic interaction between a man's fate and a gods' will, as we ourselves are when we try to uncover how, exactly, they saw and interpreted this dynamic. If this is indeed the case then the pursuit of answers to these deep seeded questions is a frivolous affair, because the answers we seek are, ironically, the very questions that we are asking when we read plays such as the Agamemnon (space provided to recollect the tatters of your mind which has now been blown).
The Veils - Not Yet
Todays song of the day. I've been listening to this song all week and it just gets better and better. Enjoy!
Behind the Scenes of Publishing Blog Posts
Wired magazine has a great graphic showing what happens after you click publish on a blog post. I thought it was pretty cool, check it out:
Are the Tides of America's Power Receeding?
Parag Khanna, of the New American Foundation thinks so. "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony"
Via the NYtimes Magazine:
At best, America's unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift. The post-cold-war "peace dividend" was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership.So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing -- and losing -- in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world's other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom.gov; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules -- their own rules -- without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this post-American world.
The more we appreciate the differences among the American, European and Chinese worldviews, the more we will see the planetary stakes of the new global game. Previous eras of balance of power have been among European powers sharing a common culture. The cold war, too, was not truly an "East-West" struggle; it remained essentially a contest over Europe. What we have today, for the first time in history, is a global, multicivilizational, multipolar battle.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Bloody Omaha
Three graphic designers recreate the Omaha beach landings scene on D-Day for a fraction of the cost it spent in the movie Saving Private Ryan. Check it out:
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Distant Friends
Mike Huckabee:
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”It's always funny to observe just how much republicans and terrorists have in common. Terrorists want to institute shar'ia into their modern laws and Huckabee wants to institute what is essentially Christian shar'ia into ours...and this particular issue is not the only issue that both groups share a common ideology on. But it's certainly enough to make me scared of both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
