I.T. Erudio

Category: literature

  • Lectures on the Harvard Classics – History

    Lectures on the Harvard Classics – History

    The entire concept of an “education” has fundamentally changed since the “Harvard Classics” were published 100+ years ago.

    A history of educational priorities and curriculum changes isn’t required. The “liberal arts” haven’t lost relevance, just been put on the back burner by increasing amounts of “technical” training.

    “Modern education” tends to focus on teaching students how to earn a good living while the classic liberal arts focus was on how to life a good life. The two aren’t diametrically opposed – yes, the time for “school” ends at some point but an “education” can (and probably should) last a lifetime.

    The original intent of the “Harvard Classics” was to “cultivate a taste for serious reading of the highest quality.” Still a worthwhile goal …

    Will reading these lectures increase you earning potential? Well, probably not. Will reading these lectures make you a better human being? Well, maybe – but your mileage will vary …

    I have never let my schooling interfere with my education

    Mark Twain

    The “History” lectures are available here

    The “Harvard Classics” collection was first published at the start of the 20th Century – the “History” lectures go from antiquity to the start of the Panama Canal (1909ish)

  • cheesy and sympathetic

    I recently made an observation that “cheesy and sympathetic” never go out of style – with the implied punch line being that “cheesy” can never go OUT of style because by definition it is never IN style.

    The folks at Merriam-Webster tell me that the non-dairy definition of “cheesy” is “shabby, cheap.” SO something that we call “cheesy” (again in a non-dietary subject) tends to be “low budget” and probably “low quality” – e.g. Plan 9 From Outer Space is a “cheesy movie” – SO cheesy that it is funny.

    The path cheesy took to mean “cheap” is almost certainly American slang:

    cheesy (adj.) Meaning “cheap, inferior” is attested from 1896, perhaps originally U.S. student slang, along with cheese (n.) “an ignorant, stupid person.”

    I’m also told at the time across the pond:

    In late 19c. British slang, cheesy was “fine, showy” (1858), probably from cheese

    That quote about the United States and the United Kingdom being “separated by a common language” comes to mind …

    “England and America are two countries separated by the same language!”

    George Bernard Shaw

    Not always bad …

    It should be pointed out that cheesy doesn’t automatically mean “bad.” Guilty pleasures often have a high “cheesy” content. Why are they “guilty pleasures?” – probably because they are “cheap and underappreciated”

    From a “food” point of view – adding cheese/cheese like substance can transform “blah” to “gimme more” — think of the difference between plain nachos vs nachos AND cheese dip.

    An “artistic work” that strives for simplicity AND entertainment will almost certainly get labelled “cheesy.” e.g. for MOST of U.S. history “romance novels” have been the best selling genre – and of course “rom-coms” as a movie genre are so popular they have channels dedicated to them – and BOTH are extremely cheesy by design.

    Just how MUCH “cheesy” is acceptable can change – but just because it is cheesy doesn’t mean it is worthless.

    e.g. Pick up a copy of an Edgar Rice Burroughs adventure story or a Max Brand western and “Cheesy but fun” will be an accurate description 99% of the time.

    Giving the audience what they want is always a path to short term profit – but almost never long term respect. e.g. “Max Brand” was a pen name for Frederick Faust to begin with – and is still a brand name today – pick up a Max Brand paper back and the title of the individual book is probably smaller on the cover than “Max Brand”

    Edgar Rice Burroughs created Tarzan – and the history of THAT iconic (and cheesy) character is beyond the scope of this article …

    Beautiful simplicity

    If “simple and entertaining” is done at a high level it might get the “elegant” label.

    At first glance elegance and cheesy are polar opposites – but the difference is in the implementation and individual interpretation.

    The first Star Wars (A New Hope) comes to mind – I loved the movie as an adventure story when I was 10 years old. By the time I was 20 it had become a little cheesy. When I re-watched it at 40 I notice the “meat and potatoes” under the cheese.

    The story being “implemented” in Star Wars has deep mythological roots – what changed was MY individual interpretation of the movie …

    While I’m at it Casablanca (1942) AND Citizen Kane (1941) routinely make the list of “great American movies” and both have a certain amount of “cheesy” in them –

    AND don’t get me started on The Great Gatsby – (either the 1925 novel OR the movie interpretations) – The 1974 Robert Redford and Mia Farrow version captures the “feel” of the novel – which is VERY “cheesy and sympathetic”

    yes, The Great Gatsby is a great novel. – Baz Luhrmann might deserve the “king of cheesy” title, but you know – different subject …

    So yes “classics” can be cheesy. BUT in general noticeable “cheesy-ness” is going to be interpreted as profiteering and maybe exploitation. i.e. a little cheesy goes a long way and TOO much ruins the product.

    When I was a child …

    1 Corinthians 13:11(“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”) drives home the point that “cheesy youthful moral reasoning” is always bad.

    Youthful arrogance and prejudice should give way to more mature (and humble) attitudes developed by experience and education. It is a lot easier to “know everything” when your world is relatively small and experience is limited.

    In THOSE cases the “cheesy” probably gets consumed with the assumption that it is the norm. Which was kinda the point of Bob Dylan’s “My Back Pages” – but that is a different subject …

    Ah, but I was so much older then I’m younger than that now

    Bob Dylan


    That youthful ignorance of the “cheesy” should naturally dissipate with time and exposure to the NOT “cheesy” — BUT just because you enjoyed something when you were “a child” doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it when you “grow up.”

    That enjoyment should be re-framed and not glorified by nostalgia – i.e. “I remember loving this when I was smaller” vs “Things today will never be as good as my memory of ‘whatever’”

    A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
    Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
    There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
    And drinking largely sobers us again.

    Alexander Pope

    Nostalgia isn’t evil …

    There has been “research” done that pinpoints the age at which “musical tastes” get locked in.

    As I remember the study – they came to the conclusion that the music we are exposed to under the age of 10 tends to have a watershed type effect – i.e. it can have a positive OR a negative impact on later musical preferences.

    My guess is that “parental relationships” become a lurking variable — if music reminds someone of their parents THAT is what they are reacting to, not the music.

    e.g. “I LOVE that song my mother/father used to play that all the time” vs “I hate that song my mother/father used to play it ALL the time”

    Childhood memories aside – the human brain keeps developing into our late 20s – and it is around that time when “band names start sounding the same” and “music just isn’t as good as it used to be” to the average person.

    If someone works in the “music industry” in some form – then their tastes may not calcify as much as non-music industry folks. However that is also going to be an exercise in the “expert mind” vs the “amateur mind” – which is also a different subject.

    SO if someone hears a song AND it reminds them of being in the 7th grade (13ish) – MY guess is that the song will FEEL “cheesy” to them simply because they are being reminded of that time in their life.

    “Beautiful” by Christina Aguilera came up a “cheesy and sympathetic” – yes, it is one of those songs that has a very high perceived “cheesy” content level – but get past the “cheese” and it is about self acceptance and independence. Scratch the surface and the message is “think for yourself” and/or be a critical thinking individual

    Ms Aguilera was 19ish when she recorded/released the song in 2002 – and I’m gonna guess that at 44ish in 2025 SHE probably has a different view of “Beautiful” – but my point is that there is “meat” under the “cheesy”

    umm, but for me I still hear “talented 19 year old” because I’m that guy in the back of the room yelling “Play Freebird!” 😉

  • Little Snow White – pdf

    a pdf with some Gemini generated images

    richest man in babylon pdf

  • Dumbledore vs Gandalf

    A “social media” post had a poll going about who would win between “Professor Albus Dumbledore” (from the “Harry Potter” books) and Gandalf the grey/white (from The Lord of the Rings – LotR).

    Well, I didn’t bother voting in the poll – I think Dumbledore was winning – but that isn’t the point.

    Polls

    The “winner” of ANY poll is going to based on the survey/poll group. This particular poll is fun because it allows “fans” to be “fans” – i.e. fans of the Harry Potter books are obviously going to choose Dumbledore, and fans of LotR are obviously going to choose Gandalf.

    Short answer: my bias is for Gandalf. BUT there are assumptions to be explained.

    Movies vs Books

    The Harry Potter MOVIES had the luxury of the author still being around. Ms Rowling didn’t write the screenplays – but she provided “assistance”/input to make sure the movies basically kept to the plots of the novels. The point being that “Dumbledore in the books” is pretty much the same as “Dumbledore in the movies.”

    J.R.R. Tolkien died in 1973. Professor Tolkien sold the “film, stage and merchandising rights” to United Artists in 1969. The “internet version” of the story is that he sold the rights because of inheritance tax issues. I have no idea what the deal was – but is sounds like he made a good decision – he got £104,000 (adjusted for inflation around £1.2 million) AND secured royalties for any future productions.

    The “book to movie” translation always comes with “storytelling issues.” What works in “book” can be hard to bring to the screen. Which means there are major differences between “Gandalf in the books” and “Gandalf in the movies.”

    Of course Peter Jackson’s LotR is great – and the “core story” is intact. Both the movies and the books tell an epic story of a battle between good and evil.

    The BIG difference between LotR book and movie is “character arcs.” Professor Tolkien was writing an “epic” with “epic heroes” – you know, big, bold, and confident. While Peter Jackson tried to make the characters a little less “big, bold, and confident” – which of course also allows the actors to “act” …

    SO Gandalf in the movies is not as “powerful” as Gandalf in the books. Ok, Gandalf is obviously not “weak” in the movies – however the character is thousands of years old, he is NOT human. “Wizards” in the LotR are “created beings”/”agents of the divine.”

    Think of the end of The Fellowship of the Ring where Gandalf fights the Balrog. In both movie and book Gandalf emerges victorious, In the movies he dies and is reborn as “Gandalf the White” BUT in the books he doesn’t die. The implication in the books is closer to “leveling up” – he gets promoted not “reborn.”

    Man vs the Divine

    For what it is worth: I’m not sure that wizards in LotR can “die.” They have a physical form that can be destroyed e.g. Saruman at the end of The Return of the King (book) – but is that a “permanent death” or just a temporary inconvenience.

    The Iliad (another epic) comes to mind. Hector (the hero of Troy) vs Achilles ( Greek hero) isn’t a fair fight in the original version – i.e. Achilles is part human and part “divine.” SO “mortal vs divine being” is never going to end well for the mortal.

    The “movie” version of the Iliad (Troy – 2004) includes a great fight scene between Achilles (Brad Pitt) and Hector (Eric Bana) – but when Hector meets Achilles in the original text, Hector runs, and Achilles chases …

    What made he ancient Greek “gods” divine was their long life. Which brings up another point – IF “being” is eternal and they get into a disagreement with “mortal” – then all the “eternal” needs to do is wait for the mortal to shuffle off the mortal coil. That is kind of a theme running through the Iliad – but I’m wandering off on a tangent …

    It’s Time!

    Dumbledore vs Gandalf as a contest between skilled professionals (or chess/checkers/pick a game) might be a toss up. Neither is “all powerful”, Dumbledore is a human with “magic powers” – and Gandalf IS a “magic being”.

    Which is probably why the poll caught my attention in the first place.

    Of course Dumbledore can and does die – so in a contrived “battle to the death” then Dumbledore doesn’t have a chance. e.g. Gandalf could go away for 500 years, come back to visit Dumbledore’s grave and say “I win!”

    Voldemort vs Sauron is also a no-contest for the same reasons. What would happen if Voldemort managed to get hold on the One Ring? Sauron feared someone using THE ring against him, but would even an exceptionally powerful mortal have been able to control the ring, or would he simply become a more powerful Gollum?

    The Ring of power might extend life but The Odyssey comes to mind. Odysseus (the man who gave us the Trojan Horse) had the opportunity to stay with Calypso (a nymph/minor goddess) – she even promised him eternal life. Odysseus desperately wanted to get back to his (mortal) wife – but also implied is that he was wise enough to see that unintended consequences are inevitable. i.e. “eternity” in a mortal body that continues to age wouldn’t be any fun (e.g. Tithonus)

    Anyway, if Dumbledore and Gandalf actually met they would probably play chess, drink wine, and swap stories about little folk – not have a fight to the death …

  • Sisyphus, “Say Anything”, The Seeker

    The tragic part of living a life of “quiet desperation” (in the Henry David Thoreau sense) is usually the lost opportunity to do good as opposed to “intentional malice.”

    For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
    Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.

    Sonnet 94 (William Shakespeare)

    In 2023 Merriam-Webster tells us that a “tragedy” is “a disastrous event : CALAMITY”

    Back in Mr Shakespeare’s time a “tragedy” was closer to “a medieval narrative poem or tale typically describing the downfall of a great man” (Merriam-Webster definition 2C – and I used the term as in Merriam-Webster definition 3: “tragic quality or element”)

    fwiw: Mr Shakespeare’s plays tend to be divided into “tragedy”, “comedy”, and “histories” – kind of the broad “genres” of his time. In Shakespearean “tragedy” a lot of people will be dead at the end of the play, in a “comedy” folks will pair up/get married, and “histories” were obviously “based on a true story” BUT tended to be presented to “please the sponsor” much more than be an accurate representation of historic events …

    Sisyphus

    The Ancient Greek concept of tragedy would have required a “great man” – to suffer a great downfall BUT more along the Merriam-Webster 2A definition (“the a serious drama typically describing a conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (such as destiny) and having a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion that elicits pity or terror”)

    Ancient Greek “tragedy” tends to involve a “mostly admirable” king/leader that does nothing “wrong” but still suffers because of a relatively small character flaw – e.g. the hero tries to avoid his “destiny”/fate and ends up bringing about his fate BECAUSE he tried to avoid it.

    Wikipedia tells us that Sisyphus was the king of Corinth, punished in Tartarus by being cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill in Greek mythology.

    BUT the myth of Sisyphus is more of a “cautionary tale” about divine justice rather than a “tragedy” – the “lesson” the Ancient Greeks were passing along with the myth of Sisyphus was probably “don’t mess with the ‘gods’” not “don’t fight your fate”

    The punishment aspect of the myth of Sisyphus is always that he is sentenced to an endless AND pointless task – just pushing the boulder up a hill might not seem that bad, but being forced to do it FOREVER for no reason, well, that wouldn’t be any fun …
    The Ancient Greek concept of tragedy would have required a “great man” – to suffer a great downfall BUT more along the Merriam-Webster 2A definition (“the a serious drama typically describing a conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (such as destiny) and having a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion that elicits pity or terror”)

    Ancient Greek “tragedy” tends to involve a “mostly admirable” king/leader that does nothing “wrong” but still suffers because of a relatively small character flaw – e.g. the hero tries to avoid his “destiny”/fate and ends up bringing about his fate BECAUSE he tried to avoid it.

    Wikipedia tells us that Sisyphus was the king of Corinth, punished in Tartarus by being cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill in Greek mythology.

    BUT the myth of Sisyphus is more of a “cautionary tale” about divine justice rather than a “tragedy” – the “lesson” the Ancient Greeks were passing along with the myth of Sisyphus was probably “don’t mess with the ‘gods’” not “don’t fight your fate”

    The punishment aspect of the myth of Sisyphus is always that he is sentenced to an endless AND pointless task – just pushing the boulder up a hill might not seem that bad, but being forced to do it FOREVER for no reason, well, that wouldn’t be any fun …

    Lloyd Dobler

    Now, the “average Ancient Greek” was a subsistence farmer (well, the “average Ancient human” was also a subsistence farmer – but that isn’t important).

    Life as a “subsistence farmer” (i.e. trying to live off of growing your own food) probably sounds “hard” to modern humans – but it would have had the advantage of a clear purpose/reason for daily labor (i.e. “survival” – feed yourself and your family).

    Fast forward to the 20th Century and there are still subsistence farmers – but they tend to be in what gets called “developing nations” in 2023.

    (aside: The concept of “Third World” nations is a relic of the “Cold War” – i.e. countries could be divided into “us” vs “them” with “not us or them” being the “Third World” – of course those countries were probably NOT “us” OR “them” because they were “undeveloped” – but now I feel like I’m going in circles.)

    Just like in “ancient times” the average “modern” subsistence farmer is most concerned with survival – and that daily struggle for survival is an obvious “purpose for work.”

    In the “developed world” the “people” can still be divided between “haves” and “have nots” – but the daily struggle for “food” has been replaced by a “subsistence paycheck” in exchange for labor.

    Of course the “problem” for “modern workers” can become CHOOSING a profession — i.e. again, for most of human existence the problem was growing enough food to survive – not “self-fulfillment”

    The last half of the 20th Century saw a lot of “progress” but human nature didn’t change. We “know” more and we “have” more in the “developed world” but humans are still the same “stuff” we have always been.

    Better nutrition and health care means the average height and weight have increased – people are bigger and healthier but still the same ol’ “people.”

    The unintended consequence of material prosperity has been to replace the “fight for survival” with a “search for meaning.”

    A lot of folks have ALWAYS managed to avoid the subject – and these are those folks leading the “unexamined life is not worth living” (as Socrates put it) or “lives of quiet desperation” (as Mr Thoreau put it).

    The late 20th century version of that struggle is found in “Say Anything” (1989) when the protagonist points out:

    “I don’t want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don’t want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed.”

    –Lloyd Dobler

    The Seeker

    From a “big picture history” point of view the rise and fall of “great societies”/Empires can be seen as a failure of “values.”

    Yes, different cultures have different concepts of “normal” – BUT for them to be a “culture” they have a “set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices.”

    It should be obvious that just living in the same geographic region does NOT make a “culture” – unless you count hating ‘those people’ as a “culture”

    I won’t bother with multiple examples – e.g. “Arabs” and “Jews.”

    On a MUCH smaller scale I laughed at myself when I didn’t apply for a “tech job” with a school system in southwestern Ohio because THEY were rivals with US in high school sports (ok, there were other reasons as well – but the friendly sports rivalry was my first thought when I saw the job posting).

    “The Who” (one of those “rock & roll” bands) serves as a modern cultural example of that human “desire for meaning” and “belonging” – one of their songs asks the big question but American poet E.E. Cummings asked a similar question in 1923:

    seeker of truth

    follow no path
    all paths lead where

    truth is here

    e.e. cummings

    The obvious problem for “seekers” is that it is possible to be deceived into thinking “truth is here” when it isn’t – this verse comes to mind –

    I tend to be suspicious of ANYONE that asks me to “trust them” about ANYTHING without any proof/verification – but that is just me (Luke 6:43-45 also comes to mind)

    Just because someone believes something and is sincere DOES NOT mean they are “true” – it is possible to be “sincerely wrong” …

    of course I could ALWAYS be wrong so you shouldn’t trust me on that –

  • Random thoughts on Time, Distance, and Faster Than Light Travel

    The good folks at Merriam-Webster give us 14 definitions for “time” as a noun, another 5 as a verb, and then 3 more as an adjective.

    A quick peek at the etymology tells us that the “time” came into the English language by way of Old English and (Old Norse) words for “tide.”

    That “time” and “tide” are related shouldn’t surprise anyone — after all “time and tide wait for no man” is one of those “proverb” things. e.g. If you make your living next to/on a large body of water then the tide going out and coming in probably greatly influences your day to day activities as much as the sun rising and setting.

    From an “exploration” point of view “precision time keeping” was essential for sailors because they could use it to determine their longitude. Not being a sailor or even mildly comfortable on a boat that doesn’t have a motor – I’m told you can use a sextant to determine your latitude using the moon and stars.

    Obviously in 2023 GPS is used for most voyages. Some high up officials in the U.S. Navy pointed out that we should still teach “basic seamanship.”

    I’ve had a career that revolves around “fixing” things because, well, things break — so teaching basic navigation without GPS sounds obvious. e.g. the U.S. Army initial entry training (“basic training”) used to spend a little bit of time teaching the POGs (“persons other than grunts”) how to read a map and use a compass.

    “Way back when” I was trained as a medic – which used to mean nine weeks of “basic” and then another period of “AIT” (advanced initial training) — all of which I seem to remember took 6 months in real time. In 2023 Google tells me that the “11B Infantry” training is “One Station Unit Training” lasting 22 weeks.

    The “Distance” Problem

    Before the “industrial revolution” in the 18th century gave us things like trains, and eventually planes, and automobiles – the fastest human beings could travel on land was on the back of a horse.

    Which basically meant that the “average human being” would live and die within 20 miles of where they were born. Since MOST people were ‘subsistence farmers” they probably didn’t have a pressing need to travel exceptionally far.

    Of course “ancient peoples” probably formed the first “cities” as equal parts “areas of mutual protection” AND “areas of commerce” — so the “local farmers market” today might be described as an example of the foundation of modern society – “people gotta eat” and “people like to socialize” …

    Those ancient subsistence farmers no doubt figured out the cycles of the moon as well as the yearly seasons so they could optimize the output of their farms. Those folks not concerned with the tides still had to “plant” and “harvest” – so “time management” was a consideration even if precise time keeping wasn’t an issue.

    Those Ancient Greeks even went so far as to create the idea of a “decisive battle” so they could decide conflicts and get back to their farms with minimal disruption (i.e. if you don’t plant, you can’t expect to harvest) – but that is another story.

    The point being that “time” was a constant – how we “redeem the time” is up to the individual – but part of being human is dealing with the inevitability of “time passing.”

    The relationship between “distance” (d), “speed” (s), and “time” (t) is probably still a “middle school” math exercise (d= st) which I won’t go into – but it is hard to overstate the impact that “fast and safe high speed travel” changed human society.

    My favorite example is “transcontinental” travel in North America. Before the U.S. completed the first transcontinental railroad in 1869 the fastest you could travel from “coast to coast” would take 6 months – e.g. you could probably take a train to Nebraska in a couple days, but then the trip from Nebraska to the west coast would take several months. Or you could sail around South America (Cape Horn) which would also take 6 months (it was probably safer but much more expensive).

    btw: Canada’s “transcontinental railroad” opened in 1881 – and is still in operation. Parts of what was the U.S. Transcontinental railroad are still around – but the rise of “automobiles” and the Interstate highway system made “interstate railway passenger travel” unprofitable.

    AFTER the transcontinental railroads you could travel coast to coast in about a week. The original “intent” of the U.S. transcontinental railroad was that it would open up trade with Asia – i.e. good shipped in from the “far east” could be shipped across the U.S. — the bigger impact ended up being allowing immigrants from Europe to settle “out west” – which is again, another story.

    It is safe to say that the “problem” of distance for “human travel” was solved by the industrial revolution. e.g. Google tell me I can DRIVE from southwestern Ohio to California in 2 days – although I could hop on a plane and travel from CVG to LAX in about 6 hours if I was pressed for time.

    If I wanted to go to Chicago (298 miles from Cincinnati) the drive is about 6 hours – but with the cost of gas (if I schedule far enough in advance) the plane trip would still take 4 hours, but probably cheaper than driving.

    The point being that “Travelling around the world” in ANY amount of time USED to be an unthinkable adventure because of the distances involved and the lack of safe/speedy travel options – now it is about time management and deciding on how comfortable you wanna be while you travel (and of course whether you want to be shot at when you get where you are going 😉 — and THAT is another story …

    Faster Than Light

    Back when I was teaching the “Network+” class multiple times a term – the textbook we used would start out comparing/contrasting common “networking media.” The three “common” media covered were 1. coaxial – one relatively large copper cable, 2. unshielded twisted pair (UTP) – 8 smaller copper wires twisted together in pairs, and then 3. “fiberoptic” cable – thin “optical fiber” strands (“glass”).

    SO I would lecture a couple hours on the costs/benefits/convenience of the three “media type” – spoiler alert most “local area networks” are using some flavor of UTP because it is still hits that sweet spot between cost/speed/convenience. The take away from that “intro to networking class” about “fiberoptic cabling” was that it was exceptionally fast, but more expensive, and harder to install than the other two.

    The “exceptionally fast” part of fiberoptic cabling is because we are dealing with the speed of light. Yes, there are other factors in network “speed” but physics 101 tells us that it is not possible to go faster than the speed of light (which is 300,000 kilometers per second or 186,000 miles per hour)

    (oh, and the “slow” part of most “computing systems/networks” is the human beings involved in the process – so UTP is just fine for 99% of the LAN implementations out there – but once again, that is another story)

    I’m not a physicist but saying that the speed of “light” is the speed of energy without mass is accurate enough for today. The point being that unless you can “change the rules of the universe” as we understand them today – it is NOT possible to go faster than light (FTL).

    There was a lot of optimism that “science” would solve the “interstellar distance” problem during the “space race” period of human history. But “interstellar distance” is mindboggling huge compared to terrestrial travel – AND we keep hitting that hard barrier of the speed of light.

    Of course neither “subsistence farmers” OR “trained thinkers” 2,000 years ago comprehended the size of the earth in relation to the rest of the universe – “educated types” probably thought it was round, and might have had a good idea at the earth’s circumference – but travelling “around the world” would have been the stuff of fantasy.

    Some well meaning folks were predicting “moon tourism” by the end of the 20th century – and I suppose the distance isn’t the problem with “moon tourism” so much as “outer space” being VERY non-conducive to human life (read that as “actively hostile” to human life).

    Gene Rodenberry (probably) came up with the idea for “Star Trek” as a direct result of the “moon mania” of the late 1960’s. Yes, “Star Trek” was conceived of as a “space western” so it was never a “hard” science fiction program – so the “Star Trek” universe tends to get a pass on the FTL issue.

    After all humanity had created jet engines that allowed us to break the speed of sound, wouldn’t it be natural to assume that someone would come up with FTL engines? With that in mind “dilithium crystals” fueling warp drive engines that allow our adventurers to go multiples of the speed of light doesn’t sound that far-fetched.

    Folks were using “Mach 2” to signify multiple of the speed of sound – why not use “Warp speed” for multiples of the speed of light.

    It is easy to forget that “the original series” (TOS) was “cancelled” each year it was produced – after seasons 1 and 2 a fan letter writing campaign convinced the network folks to bring the show back. TOS was always best when it concentrated on the characters and stayed away from the “hard science” as much as possible.

    BUT I’m not picking on “Star Trek” – just pointing out the physics …

    Time Travel

    Mr Einstein’s theory sometimes involves a “though experiment” where we have two newborn babies (or feel free to think of newborn kittens/puppies/hamsters/whatever if the “baby” example gets in the way) AND we put one of the newborns on a “spaceship” and accelerate that ship “close to the speed of light” (we can’t actually go the speed of light – we are just getting as close as possible).

    When our imaginary thought experiment ship returns – the newborn on the ship doesn’t appear to have aged but the newborn that stayed behind is now extremely old. This is the “twin paradox” and a lot of folks smarter than me have spent considerable time examining the question –

    The point is that Mr Einstein’s theory does not allow for “travelling backwards” in time.

    Again, “Star Trek” (TOS) became famous for slingshotting the Enterprise around the sun, and going faster than the speed of light (“light speed break-away factor“) to travel backwards in time.

    Of course, if you have “suspended disbelief” and have accepted that the warp drive engines can routinely achieve multiples of the speed of light – then the “Star Trek” writers are just engaged in good storytelling, which again interesting characters and good stories has always been the best part of the “Star Trek” universe.

    btw: the most plausible “time travel” in a TOS episode was “The City on the Edge of Forever” – that is the one with Joan Collins for casual fans (season 1 episode 28). It tends to be listed near the top of “best episode” lists for TOS.

    I seem to remember someone asking Stephen Hawking about the possibility of time travel “way back when.” (btw: Mr Hawking was a Star Trek fan and has the distinction of being the only “celebrity guest star” to play themselves – TNG Season 6, episode 26 – Data on the holodeck playing poker with Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Stephen Hawking) – as I remember it, Mr Hawking’s response was something along the lines of “if you could travel faster than the speed of light, then time travel might be possible”

    Of course that is probably the same as him saying “… and it is also possible that monkeys might fly out of my butt …” – but you know, it is entertainment not “hard science.”

    While I’m at it

    The “time traveler” in HG Well’s “The Time Machine” explains traveling in time as travelling in another “dimension” – since humanity had created machines to let us travel in the other dimensions (up, down, side to side – e.g. length, width, height) then travel through “time” would just require a new machine.

    That “time travel device” just becomes an element of good storytelling – i.e. best practice is to tell what it does and NOT spend a lot of time explaining HOW it works.

    Doctor Who and the TARDIS (“Time And Relative Dimensions In Space”) get a short explanation when required – and they added the ability to travel instantaneously through time AND space, probably both as storytelling device and as a nod to Mr Einstein’s “space-time” concept.

    “The Planet of the Apes” (1968) used the basic “twin paradox” idea – but then “something happened” and rather than landing on a distant planet they end up back on earth.

    In the 1970 sequel “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” the “rescue team” has followed the first group – and this time they say they were caught in a “tear if the fabric of space time” or something. Of course they conveniently land in the same general area as the first crew and everyone speaks English.

    There were three more “Planet of the Apes” sequels – they travel back in time in “Escape from the Planet of the Apes” (1971) – I don’t think they bother to explain how the got back, but I haven’t been able to sit through “Escape from the Planet of the Apes” recently.

    I think “Planet of the Apes” (2001) was a victim of a writer’s strike – it isn’t particularly re-watchable for any number of reasons – not least of which is that they jump through illogical hoops to have Mark Wahlberg end up back in the present with a monkey Lincoln memorial.

    The Andy Serkis as Caesar “Planet of the Apes” trilogy doesn’t bother with the “time travel” trope – substituting a “engineered virus” that (unintentionally) kills most of humanity and makes the surviving humans less intelligent.

    “The Final Countdown” (1980) has an aircraft carrier go back in time to 1941 just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The movie revolves around the “can/should they change history by intercepting the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor” question – you can watch it for free on Tubi.com if interested.

    This time around the time travel is a “finger of God” sort of thing – as I remember it a mysterious storm just appears and the 1980’s era aircraft carrier ends up in 1941. I’ll just point out that it is “plausible” but won’t spoil the ending …

    Fred Ward had a long career as a “character actor” that died in 2022. He tried to make the move from “grizzled nice guy co-star/sidekick” to “leading man” multiple times in the 1980’s. He appears destined to be remembered as Kevin Bacon’s co-star in “Tremors” (1990) – he was one of those “instantly recognizable faces but you might not be able to recall his name” actors.

    Mr Ward starred in several movies that qualify as “cult classics” (i.e. well made movies that didn’t find a mass audience at the time of release but continue to be popular years later). Mr Ward’s “time travel” movie was 1982’s “Timerider: The Adventure of Lyle Swann” – which isn’t available streaming, but has a blu-ray release which probably illustrates the “cult classic” concept better than anything

    As I remember it (I haven’t see the movie in years) – Mr Ward is a dirt bike rider that accidently gets sent back in time (1870s American West) by “secret government experiment” of some kind which he accidently stumbles into — the memorable part is that they manage to slip in a version of the classic time-travel “grandfather” paradox.

    Normally the “grandfather” paradox is similar to “Back to the Future” where the time traveler does something to keep their ancestors from meeting/reproducing/whatever. “Timerider” is the other option – where he ends up being his own great-great-grandfather – enjoying the movie doesn’t revolve around that point and it looks like the movie is still being sold on blu-ray in Italy and Spain, so …

    The whole “time travel machine” trope got called for its inherent silliness with “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” (1989) – the movie is funny on multiple levels, and it is safe to say it skewered the whole “travel in time and change events” movie genre — “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey” (1991) takes the joke even further but it suffers a little from “sequel-itis” …

    I’ll finish with a nod toward “Land of the Lost” both the 1974-1977 kids tv show and the 2009 Will Ferrell movie – where they “slip through” rips in time or something.

    I suppose the “science” behind the movie/series is similar to “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” where it is implied that there are “rips in time” or something that can be predicted and then travelled through.

    Yes, I am ignoring the various “multiverse” shows out there – simply because they are just modern “duex ex machina” plots. Worth noting because they reflect humanities desire to be able to go back and “fix” the past, but they quickly wore out their novelty …

  • George Lucas, Jedis, and the Knight errant

    Full disclosure: “Star Wars” was released in 1977 – when I was 8ish years old. This post started as a “reply” to something else – and grew – so I apologize for the lack of real structure – kind of a work in progress …

    I am still a “George Lucas” fan – no, I didn’t think episodes I, II, and III were as good as the original trilogy but I didn’t hate them either.

    George Lucas obviously didn’t have all of the “backstory” for the “Jedi” training fully formed when he was making “Star Wars” back in the late 1970’s

    in fact the “mystery” of the Jedi Knights was (probably) part of the visceral appeal of the original trilogy (Episodes IV, V, and VI – for those playing along)

    As always when you start trying to explain the “how” and “why” behind successful “science fantasy” you run into the fact that these are all just made up stories and NOT an organized religion handed down by a supreme intelligence

    if you want to start looking at “source material” for the “Jedi” – the first stop is obvious – i.e. they are “Jedi KNIGHTS” – which should obviously bring to mind the King Arthur legend et al

    in the real world a “knight in training” started as a “Page” (age 7 to 13), then became a “Squire” (age 14 to 18-21), and then would become a “Knight”

    of course the whole point of being a “Knight” was (probably) to be of service and get granted some land somewhere so they could get married and have little ones

    since Mr Lucas was making it all up – he also made his Jedi “keepers of the faith” combing the idea of “protectors of the Republic” with “priestly celibacy” — then the whole “no attachments”/possessions thing comes straight from Buddhism

    btw: all this is not criticism of George Lucas – in fact his genius (again in Episodes IV, V, VI) was in blending them together and telling an entertaining story without beating the audience over the head with minutiae

    ANYWAY “back in the 20th century” describing something as the “Disney version” used to mean that it was “nuclear family friendly” — feel free to psychoanalyze Walt Disney if you want, i.e. he wasn’t handing down “truth from the mountain” either — yes, he had a concept of an “idealized” childhood that wasn’t real – but that was the point

    just like “Jedi Knights” were George Lucas’ idealized “Knights Templar” – the real point is that they are IDEALIZED for a target audience of “10 year olds” – and when you start trying to explain too much the whole thing falls apart

    e.g. the “Jedi training” as it has been expanded/over explained would much more likely create sociopaths than “wise warrior priests” — which for the record is my same reaction to Plato’s “Republic” – i.e. that the system described would much more likely create sociopaths that only care about themselves rather than “philosopher kings” capable of ruling with wisdom

  • In Memoriam 16

    … then THIS poem is directly about Arthur Henry Hallam — “who died suddenly of a cerebral hemorrhage in Vienna in 1833, aged 22.” (Thank you Google and probably wikipedia)

    Published in 1850 – which is the same year Alfred Tennyson married Emily Sellwood. Arthur Hallam’s death would have been 3 or 4 years earlier – so the “love” being lost was his best friend.

    The English has a LOT of words – and also a LOT of meanings/connotations for single words. SO “love” gets used a lot in different contexts – allowing for multiple interpretations.

    Any “close reading” requires a consideration of the society in which the author is writing – e.g. ancient Greek men talking about “love” is much different than Victorian England men talking about “love.”

    An internet commentary speculated that Arthur Hallam and Alfred Tennyson were such close friends that if Mr Hallam hadn’t died that Alfred Tennyson may never have married – which is simply ridiculous.

    Yes, they were very close – but any sense of “modern homoeroticism” is being inserted by modern readers. Arthur Hallam was engaged to Tennyson’s younger sister (obviously before his untimely death). Alfred Tennyson wouldn’t meet his future wife for a couple years after Hallam’s death – as mentioned earlier.

    For MOST of human history the idea that it possible to “love” someone in a “non sexual manner” has been a given. Obvioulsy “love” and “sex” are NOT synonyms – so if Arthur Hallam had lived Tennyson probably wouldn’t have written “In Memoriam” but he still would have married Emily Sellwood.

    Now you can argue about which form of “love” is strongest if you like – but the point (here at least) is that it is possible to love a “best friend” one way and a “romantic partner” another way.

    ANYWAY – what I really learned from reciting this poem is that I have no rhythm – or maybe my “rhythm” is from 1950/60 crooners (Crosby/Sinatra/Darin) and not Victorian England 😉

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjT6k8BGjEM

  • Tennyson – Ulysses


    I got around to recording a version of Tennyson’s “Ulysses” ….

    also learned how to add subtitles with Davinci Resolve – which is not complicated but is time consuming. I’m sure there is a better way to create the subtitle file for youtube upload – e.g. there is “markup” in the subtitles which I didn’t intend.

    The picture is where Tennyson lived from 1853 until his death in 1892. officially it is “Farringford House, in the village of Freshwater Bay, Isle of Wight” — the house is now a “luxury hotel” – which means it isn’t really open as a “tourist destination” but if you have the resources you might be able to stay there …

    Tennyson wrote “Ulysses” in his early 20’s after the death of a close friend. The “narrator” of the poem is supposed to be “old” Ulysses after his return to Ithaca – maybe 50-ish –

    ANYWAY – the “Iliad” is about the end of the Trojan war – with the story centering around Achilles (who gets named dropped near the end of Tennyson’s poem).

    The “Odyssey” is a “sequel” to the “Iliad” telling the story of Odysseus’ (original Greek)/Ulysses (Latin/English translation) journey home from Troy – which ends up taking 10 years (after the 10 year siege of Troy)

    classical “spoiler alert” — Achilles death and Odysseus coming up with the “Trojan horse” idea allowing the Greeks inside the wall of Troy — happen “off screen” between where the Iliad ends and the Odyssey begins

    Odysseus returns home alone (he was King of Ithaca when he left to fight against Troy) – and promptly kills all of the “high ranking suitors” that were trying to coerce his wife (Penelope) into marriage (you know, because Odysseus must have died – since everyone else returned from Troy 10 years ago).

    some versions of Homer’s “Odyssey” have Ulysses taking care of business and then the “gods” have to intervene to establish peace – some modern scholars argue for various “alternate endings” e.g. it may have ended with the reunion of Odysseus and Penelope —

    Tennyson’s Ulysses picks up the story a couple years (“three suns” might be “three years”?) after the Odyssey. With his family taken care of and his son firmly established as the next ruler, Ulysses wants to go on one last adventure.

    Now, if you want to nit-pick – the “mariners” mentions were obviously NOT under Ulysses command on the return from Troy (remember, he loses everything – ship, crew, clothes – EVERYTHING – on the way home). However, that doesn’t mean that they hadn’t all fought together during the (10 year) Trojan war …

    I’ll point out (again) that Tennyson was in his early 20’s when he wrote Ulysses. Tennyson wouldn’t meet Emily Sellwood until his mid 20’s (whom he would be married to until his death 42 years later) – so maybe faithful Penelope should get a better treatment than just a passing reference as an “aged wife” – but that is just me nit-picking 😉

  • parenting, birth order, destiny

    Recently noticed a “social media post” from a well meaning individual about individual responsibility – that I would tend to agree with, but is still slightly specious …

    Before starting, I feel obligated to point out that no one has “perfect parents” – we are all imperfect human beings. I will argue that MOST parents are trying very hard and doing the best they can with what they have.

    I am NOT talking about anyone in particular. My Bachelors degree is in “Liberal Studies” – e.g. which kind of means I took a lot of psychology and history classes, but not enough of either to get a degree is “psychology” or “history.”

    Umm, so whoever is reading this – I’m not talking about you 😉 Most of what I’ll point out has “research” to back it up and of course the occasional Bible verse will popup.

    Parenting

    The “motivating meme” said something about children raised by the same parents turning out differently – the old one is a Sinner the other a Saint, but both came from the same circumstances/had the same parents.

    This is where the “speciousness” occurs – the assumption is both that “parenting” is a uniform/consistent product and that children are all the same.

    Two individuals can grow up in the same household with the same parents and have very different “parenting experiences.”

    Part of that difference is due to the fact that “parenting” isn’t something you buy in cans from the “parenting” store. Once more – there are no perfect human parents – because there are no “perfect” humans.

    (oh, and this is where if someone says there family is “perfect” – feel free to ask them about their eating disorder. No family is “perfect” but thinking you are supposed to be part of a “perfect” family tends to be a sign of an eating disorder.)

    The point is that “parents” are living life as well – again, most parents are doing the best they can.

    Of course differences in “parenting” between “families” is easy to understand – but my subject today differences in children raised by the same parents.

    I’ve chatted with (some) parents that admit they thought their first child would be a “blank slate” that just needed to be “trained right” and everything would be perfect (this is the old “tabula rasa” theory).

    Well, then it turns out that the child came with a “disposition” and the “blank slate” thinking goes out the window.

    SO this is where the “humans are complex emotional beings” concept comes into play – no two siblings are going to be EXACTLY the same. If the same two parents have multiple children, then each child comes with a “disposition” installed at the factory 😉

    Birth Order

    Back in “the old days” of “landed gentry” the cliche was that in a family with four male children – the first born would inherit the “estate” (and enter politics), the second born would join the military, and the third would go into “law”, and the fourth would join the “church”.

    That tradition sounds “cute” in 2021 – but in an agricultural society “land” equals “wealth.” Obviously if the family divided the land between all the children, eventually the segments of land would be to small to be productive.

    The point for bringing up that tradition is to point out the difference “birth order” would have made on parenting expectations “back then.”

    I’m not sure how much “real research” has been done on “birth order” and the results on the child’s personality/psychology. More responsibility being placed on older children would be normal, but that doesn’t translate into “birth order rules” – again, parents aren’t manufacturing a product, and children are individuals.

    In the course of “getting to know” someone – I tend to ask about siblings and birth order. No, I don’t draw any conclusions about someone based on their birth order – there is (probably) more telling information in how they talk about their family than the size of the family – but that isn’t important now 😉

    In 2021 pointing out that “two parent” households tend to do better, then “single parent” households can get you called names – but there it is.

    We (as in “humanity”) also tend to “parent” the way we were “parented.” Which means that dysfunctional families tend to create MORE dysfunctional families – e.g. children of alcoholics will often marry alcoholics (a therapist might say they are “working on resolving primary relationship issues” – but I ain’t a therapist 😉 )

    In any case there is a BIG difference between “good enough”/”average” parenting and “abusive”/”truly dysfunctional” parenting.

    Medea from Greek mythology comes to mind – did they murder their children? no? then they did SOMETHING right (did I mention I’m not judging anyone?)

    The cliche that the best gift you can give your children is to have a strong marriage – is still true – BUT again, that is a “general statement” not written in stone. Did I mention that parents are people too?

    I’m not judging just pointing out that if you want “better adults” then “stronger families” are probably a good place to start – and I’m moving on …

    Destiny

    The whole “free will” vs “fate”/destiny comes to mind at this point.

    The Judeo Christian tradition has splintered quite a bit on this subject – and I won’t try to summarize 500 years of “Protestantism” here. How about if I just say that a lot of smart people have thought/written a lot about the subject – and it is probably beyond human explanation – and moving on.

    This verse from the Book of Proverbs (22:6) summarizes “parenting 101” expectations – then Deuteronomy 24:16 tells us that “every man shall be put to death for his own sin”

    Taken out of context – this Shakespeare quote (from “Julius Caesar”) “the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves” sounds like a good summary of this almost 1,000 word ramble …

    (but “in context”, well, Brutus was an honorable man, they were ALL honorable men – which probably works even better – i.e. the line is used to convince Brutus that Julius Caesar must be assassinated for the “common good”)