I have profoundly mixed feelings about talking or writing about politics.
On the one hand, politics can be an extremely important issue, strongly influencing our lives and our "pursuit of happiness". On the other hand, politics has become SO polarized, and so mired in slogans and over-simplifications, that expressing disagreement with someone's political views can cause them to automatically discount everything else you have to say, and in fact change your personal relationship with them forever.
I have stated elsewhere in this blog that there is one and ONLY one central political "issue" -- the question of the proper role of government in our lives. I have also stated that this question rarely gets asked, because people tend to believe that the answer is obvious.
A recurring theme of this blog is the idea that communication can help us resolve our differences and solve our problems. Unfortunately, what passes for political "discussion" these days is often mostly both sides reciting well-rehearsed distortions and over-simplifications of each others' positions, while refusing to agree on ANYTHING and insisting that the truth is far from complicated.
In fact, we, as a nation, now accept an alternative view of reality -- the view put forth by politicians. If we want to know whether a certain asteroid will strike the earth, we listen not to astronomers and astrophysicists, but to Congressmen and Senators. If we want to know the best way to win a war, we listen not to soldiers and generals, but to our politicians. And if we want to analyze our economy, and the problems and solutions facing our economy, we listen not to economists and those who have spent a lifetime studying economics, but instead to our political leaders.
Personally, I find this all to be quite exasperating. I freely admit that I do not have the answers, but I also recognize when OTHER people do not have the answers. Sadly, we seem to be living in an age of increased personal certainty, when people are more and more convinced that THEY are RIGHT. (Hmmm ... sounds like a topic for a future blog-post.)
My frustration with political discussion leads me to want to talk about it and write about it ... but then I fear that I will end up shutting down communication, rather than assisting or enabling it. And if I shut down communication, then I am part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
The problem is amplified somewhat by my strong belief that the truth tends to be complicated. Many of the most difficult issues facing us today are deeply complicated, and I will oppose anyone who argues that the answers are clear-cut, even if I personally agree with their "side" of the issue. That's a complicated idea. To re-state, even if I AGREE with your position on gun control, or abortion, or Israel, or same-sex marriage, I will DISAGREE with you if you claim that the issue is not complicated.
The result of all this is that I end up with strong feelings about politics, and I enjoy actually communicating about politics (though I hate "spin" and distortion and over-simplification), and I end up wanting to WRITE about politics ... but then I end up being reluctant to post political writings in a blog.
This is compounded by the fact that I am painfully aware that words are inherently unclear, and anything ANYONE writes can probably be twisted to the point that it bears no resemblance to their true belief -- so if you WANT to twist my words, and claim that I believe something I do NOT believe, you will probably be successful. But that is always the case with words, and not limited to politics.
So, as America hurtles once more toward a possibly world-changing election, I once again resolve to try to be bolder about writing about politics. I suppose we should ALL try harder to actually COMMUNICATE about politics -- that is, actually trying to UNDERSTAND each other rather than demonize each other, and actually trying to figure stuff out rather than simply insisting that WE are RIGHT.
Truth is complicated.
Showing posts with label blogging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blogging. Show all posts
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Keeping In Touch
In my opinion -- and I am not sure that WE are the best judge of our own personal flaws -- my greatest personal flaw is my failure to keep in touch with my friends. I have never been much of a letter-writer, and I actually have a sort of phobia regarding phone calls ... so once I become geographically distant from someone, I generally fail to maintain much -- or ANY -- contact. It's NOT that they are out of my mind or out of my heart ... but they have no way of knowing this. There are people who I consider to be among my very closest friends, yet I have had absolutely NO contact with them in decades.
Incidentally, I am much better with e-mail -- that is, I send and receive e-mails without most of the difficulty of letters or telephone calls -- but I lost touch with most of these friends long before e-mail was available.
I imagine that most people hearing or reading this would be unsympathetic and maybe disgusted, perhaps pointing out that if I have had absolutely NO contact with someone in several decades, it is unrealistic to think of them as among my closest friends. The fact is that I DO think of these people as my closest friends, regardless of whether it is reasonable or logical.
I have no particular defense; my behavior is indefensible -- though there IS my very real phone phobia, and also some sort of phobic disorder involving snail-mail. (IF I was informed that I had won a million dollars, but I had to call some phone number to claim it, there is about a fifty-fifty chance I would be physically able to make the call. Clearly, this is irrational, and I am not asking anyone to UNDERSTAND it. It is simply a fact. I have had difficulty with telephones since childhood.) (I have realized that the reason I am fine with e-mail, but not with snail-mail, involves issues such as securing and addressing the envelope, which is somehow overwhelming to me -- but I have not really figured this out.)
An aspect of the problem that may be easier to relate to is the fact that as time passes, it becomes more and more socially awkward to initiate contact. I have actually started letters to people, but become bogged down in the early paragraphs with attempts at apologies and explanations, and eventually just given up with the letters unfinished and un-sent. This seems especially tragic. I need some sort of “Get out of jail free” card to casually re-initiate contact without those awkward initial moments.
I was especially aware of the problem last January, just following our traditional midwinter Holiday Season, as I realize the final two or three friends who still sent me holiday greeting cards did NOT send anything this year, for the first time. (By the way, for those who are offended by my mention of the "midwinter Holiday Season" rather than Christmas, the fact is that although I am NOT Jewish, most of the people who send me holiday greeting cards ARE, so most of my greeting cards are for Hanukah or generic "Holiday" cards rather than Christmas.)
I was also thinking about this in relation to blogging. I have not posted any entries in a long time, and it is becoming harder and harder to re-establish contact with this blog. Like reaching out to an old friend, the occasion seems to call for something momentous, rather than casual ... which makes it all the more difficult, and tends to perpetuate non-action rather than action.
One of the greatest challenges in life is reflected in Reinhold Niebuhr's "Serenity Prayer" -- the part about changing the things that can be changed, and accepting the things that cannot, and knowing the difference. This is a challenge that we face with the entire universe, but especially with ourselves. I do not know whether I can do a better job of keeping in touch with my now-lost friends. I think I will try.
Truth is complicated.
Incidentally, I am much better with e-mail -- that is, I send and receive e-mails without most of the difficulty of letters or telephone calls -- but I lost touch with most of these friends long before e-mail was available.
I imagine that most people hearing or reading this would be unsympathetic and maybe disgusted, perhaps pointing out that if I have had absolutely NO contact with someone in several decades, it is unrealistic to think of them as among my closest friends. The fact is that I DO think of these people as my closest friends, regardless of whether it is reasonable or logical.
I have no particular defense; my behavior is indefensible -- though there IS my very real phone phobia, and also some sort of phobic disorder involving snail-mail. (IF I was informed that I had won a million dollars, but I had to call some phone number to claim it, there is about a fifty-fifty chance I would be physically able to make the call. Clearly, this is irrational, and I am not asking anyone to UNDERSTAND it. It is simply a fact. I have had difficulty with telephones since childhood.) (I have realized that the reason I am fine with e-mail, but not with snail-mail, involves issues such as securing and addressing the envelope, which is somehow overwhelming to me -- but I have not really figured this out.)
An aspect of the problem that may be easier to relate to is the fact that as time passes, it becomes more and more socially awkward to initiate contact. I have actually started letters to people, but become bogged down in the early paragraphs with attempts at apologies and explanations, and eventually just given up with the letters unfinished and un-sent. This seems especially tragic. I need some sort of “Get out of jail free” card to casually re-initiate contact without those awkward initial moments.
I was especially aware of the problem last January, just following our traditional midwinter Holiday Season, as I realize the final two or three friends who still sent me holiday greeting cards did NOT send anything this year, for the first time. (By the way, for those who are offended by my mention of the "midwinter Holiday Season" rather than Christmas, the fact is that although I am NOT Jewish, most of the people who send me holiday greeting cards ARE, so most of my greeting cards are for Hanukah or generic "Holiday" cards rather than Christmas.)
I was also thinking about this in relation to blogging. I have not posted any entries in a long time, and it is becoming harder and harder to re-establish contact with this blog. Like reaching out to an old friend, the occasion seems to call for something momentous, rather than casual ... which makes it all the more difficult, and tends to perpetuate non-action rather than action.
One of the greatest challenges in life is reflected in Reinhold Niebuhr's "Serenity Prayer" -- the part about changing the things that can be changed, and accepting the things that cannot, and knowing the difference. This is a challenge that we face with the entire universe, but especially with ourselves. I do not know whether I can do a better job of keeping in touch with my now-lost friends. I think I will try.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Serious
I can find humor in almost any situation. Humor is one of my main coping mechanisms. At funerals, I will often make jokes as I cry. There are those who will find this inappropriate or unsettling. So be it. Truth is complicated, and we are all different.
At the same time, if we choose to live around others, we must find a way to deal with each others feelings. Among the most frustrating phenomenons in human interaction are not being taken seriously, and not knowing whether to take someone else seriously.
Since I use humor as a coping mechanism, and am aware that some may be troubled by this, I try to always be ready to clarify my true feelings, and be aware of the true feelings of others. I do this by being straightforward. If I have made a joke, and someone incredulously asks, "Are you SERIOUS?" I will tell them the truth. Likewise, when I am serious, but someone incorrectly assumes that I am joking, I will attempt to assure them that I am serious.
This is the point at which I draw a clear line. Some people refuse to clarify their true feelings, and seem to believe that causing someone emotional pain makes their joke even funnier. Others refuse to acknowledge when someone is no longer joking.
This is a difficult subject to discuss, and definitely calls for examples. Imagine a situation with a group of people, especially children. One child snatches something away from another child, and then the children toss it between themselves while the original owner of the item tries to grab it back. This is a common scenario, and most people would consider it "playing around", and it MIGHT involve laughter by everyone involved. However, it could easily degenerate into crying and/or fighting. Even if it degenerates into clear emotional and/or physical pain, there are those who may continue to insist that it is all "in fun". This is a case in which people may be refusing to accept that what is "fun" for some is "serious" for others, or it may be that they ACCEPT it but still see no need to modify their actions.
This same basic scenario may play out in an infinite number of ways, with the common thread being that one or more people are "serious" while one or more people are "just having fun." Sometimes, those who are "just having fun" may truly be unaware that others are "serious", or those who are "serious" may be truly unaware that others are "just having fun."
This issue is perhaps more complicated than it appears to be, since it combines elements of communication, sensitivity to others, and questions regarding whether or not to modify one's own behavior in deference to the feelings of others. Personally, I find little humor in causing pain to others, even if I claim it is "in fun". At the same time, if I am having fun, and a complete stranger passes by and takes offense, I will not necessarily alter my activities.
More importantly, if I SAY I am serious, then I AM serious.
Truth is complicated.
At the same time, if we choose to live around others, we must find a way to deal with each others feelings. Among the most frustrating phenomenons in human interaction are not being taken seriously, and not knowing whether to take someone else seriously.
Since I use humor as a coping mechanism, and am aware that some may be troubled by this, I try to always be ready to clarify my true feelings, and be aware of the true feelings of others. I do this by being straightforward. If I have made a joke, and someone incredulously asks, "Are you SERIOUS?" I will tell them the truth. Likewise, when I am serious, but someone incorrectly assumes that I am joking, I will attempt to assure them that I am serious.
This is the point at which I draw a clear line. Some people refuse to clarify their true feelings, and seem to believe that causing someone emotional pain makes their joke even funnier. Others refuse to acknowledge when someone is no longer joking.
This is a difficult subject to discuss, and definitely calls for examples. Imagine a situation with a group of people, especially children. One child snatches something away from another child, and then the children toss it between themselves while the original owner of the item tries to grab it back. This is a common scenario, and most people would consider it "playing around", and it MIGHT involve laughter by everyone involved. However, it could easily degenerate into crying and/or fighting. Even if it degenerates into clear emotional and/or physical pain, there are those who may continue to insist that it is all "in fun". This is a case in which people may be refusing to accept that what is "fun" for some is "serious" for others, or it may be that they ACCEPT it but still see no need to modify their actions.
This same basic scenario may play out in an infinite number of ways, with the common thread being that one or more people are "serious" while one or more people are "just having fun." Sometimes, those who are "just having fun" may truly be unaware that others are "serious", or those who are "serious" may be truly unaware that others are "just having fun."
This issue is perhaps more complicated than it appears to be, since it combines elements of communication, sensitivity to others, and questions regarding whether or not to modify one's own behavior in deference to the feelings of others. Personally, I find little humor in causing pain to others, even if I claim it is "in fun". At the same time, if I am having fun, and a complete stranger passes by and takes offense, I will not necessarily alter my activities.
More importantly, if I SAY I am serious, then I AM serious.
Truth is complicated.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Repetition
I once heard a stand-up comic (unfortunately, I do not recall who it was) doing a very funny routine about the Disney “It’s a Small World” ride. On the actual ride, visitors are carried past animated figures representing children from all over the world, all singing the “It’s a Small World” song. The ride is offers no particular thrills; I would say it is intended to be pleasant or even joyful. The stand-up comic, since he was, after all, a stand-up comic, offered an alternate view, describing it as frightening and demonic, with all those animated children, “all completely different, yet ALL EXACTLY THE SAME.”
Anyone viewing the world philosophically often faces the paradox of things that are different, yet the same. Generally, it’s not so much the paradoxical nature of the things themselves, but instead of our point of view, or what we are choosing to focus on.
I had a group of friends who had a standing joke regarding the idea that there are only a very limited number of different personalities, and everyone you encounter has one of these personalities. I think the number was something like “seventeen”, but I don’t recall the precise number. While this was said as a joke, I believe there is a kernel of truth in the idea. I suspect the total number is far greater, but still finite. To clarify: I suspect if you had every person answer a large number of questions about themselves (say, a thousand questions) and then matched them up with other people who had answered all or most of the questions in the same way, then you could successfully predict how one person would respond to a situation by looking at the response of another who had provided the very same answers. This would be an interesting experiment. I suppose this idea is already being used by people like guidance counselors and criminal profilers. However, even if this idea is useful, it does not contradict the idea that everyone is unique.
Then there is the realm of ideas. My favorite college instructor, Marty Shichtman, liked to focus on the similarities between ideas. A discussion of “Beowulf” could include a discussion of “Star Wars”, or a discussion of Dante’s Inferno could lead to a discussion of The Wizard of Oz. These stories can also be considered “different, yet the same.”
I first encountered the idea that “There are no original thoughts” while in middle school. Some may debate this concept, but it seems to have merit. Anyone wishing to disprove it must somehow establish that a certain thought is indeed “original” -- and I do not know how this could ever be established. Central to the debate would be the question of what constitutes “original” and what constitutes “the same as previous thoughts.”
While I am mentioning ideas from school, I should also acknowledge my college professors Wilmuth and Marshall. They were discussing a certain author. (I know who the author was, but I am not going to give his name, to avoid potential slander.) One of the professors casually stated that although this author had written a number of books, ALL of the books “said the same thing.” They were not implying that the books were the same, word-for-word, but that all the books made the same basic points. Incidentally, they WERE of the opinion that the author could have just as well stopped with a single book that made all his relevant points.
When I began this blog, I acknowledged that I was not necessarily going to write anything truly original. I also acknowledged that I would feel free to “plagiarize” myself (if such a thing is even possible). Now, as I continue to write entry after entry, I find myself worrying about repetition, and questioning whether the things I am writing are “different” or “all exactly the same.”
I believe there is truth in both points of view. It is logical that key ideas that are particularly important to someone will show up again and again in their writing. It is also logical that they may see subtle, crucial differences in approaching these same basic ideas from different angles, or slightly different forms of the same basic ideas. I ask that anyone reading any of these ideas bear with me, and realize that:
1) If I seem to be writing the same ideas over and over, it may be because I consider those ideas to be really important, and worthy of repetition, and
2) Rather than just dismiss something as “the same”, there might be value in looking for “the difference.”
Truth is complicated.
Anyone viewing the world philosophically often faces the paradox of things that are different, yet the same. Generally, it’s not so much the paradoxical nature of the things themselves, but instead of our point of view, or what we are choosing to focus on.
I had a group of friends who had a standing joke regarding the idea that there are only a very limited number of different personalities, and everyone you encounter has one of these personalities. I think the number was something like “seventeen”, but I don’t recall the precise number. While this was said as a joke, I believe there is a kernel of truth in the idea. I suspect the total number is far greater, but still finite. To clarify: I suspect if you had every person answer a large number of questions about themselves (say, a thousand questions) and then matched them up with other people who had answered all or most of the questions in the same way, then you could successfully predict how one person would respond to a situation by looking at the response of another who had provided the very same answers. This would be an interesting experiment. I suppose this idea is already being used by people like guidance counselors and criminal profilers. However, even if this idea is useful, it does not contradict the idea that everyone is unique.
Then there is the realm of ideas. My favorite college instructor, Marty Shichtman, liked to focus on the similarities between ideas. A discussion of “Beowulf” could include a discussion of “Star Wars”, or a discussion of Dante’s Inferno could lead to a discussion of The Wizard of Oz. These stories can also be considered “different, yet the same.”
I first encountered the idea that “There are no original thoughts” while in middle school. Some may debate this concept, but it seems to have merit. Anyone wishing to disprove it must somehow establish that a certain thought is indeed “original” -- and I do not know how this could ever be established. Central to the debate would be the question of what constitutes “original” and what constitutes “the same as previous thoughts.”
While I am mentioning ideas from school, I should also acknowledge my college professors Wilmuth and Marshall. They were discussing a certain author. (I know who the author was, but I am not going to give his name, to avoid potential slander.) One of the professors casually stated that although this author had written a number of books, ALL of the books “said the same thing.” They were not implying that the books were the same, word-for-word, but that all the books made the same basic points. Incidentally, they WERE of the opinion that the author could have just as well stopped with a single book that made all his relevant points.
When I began this blog, I acknowledged that I was not necessarily going to write anything truly original. I also acknowledged that I would feel free to “plagiarize” myself (if such a thing is even possible). Now, as I continue to write entry after entry, I find myself worrying about repetition, and questioning whether the things I am writing are “different” or “all exactly the same.”
I believe there is truth in both points of view. It is logical that key ideas that are particularly important to someone will show up again and again in their writing. It is also logical that they may see subtle, crucial differences in approaching these same basic ideas from different angles, or slightly different forms of the same basic ideas. I ask that anyone reading any of these ideas bear with me, and realize that:
1) If I seem to be writing the same ideas over and over, it may be because I consider those ideas to be really important, and worthy of repetition, and
2) Rather than just dismiss something as “the same”, there might be value in looking for “the difference.”
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Blogger "User Profile"
The "blogger" service offers a way to generate a "User Profile" using the blogspot template. Perhaps if I was wiser and more experienced, I could figure out a way to bypass or at least modify their template, but for now, their template is what I have available.
When you click on "Edit Profile" it brings up eight sections: Privacy, Identity, Photograph, Audio Clip, General, Location, Work, and Extended Info.
Under "Privacy", there are checkboxes for "Share my profile", "Show my real name", "Show my email address", "Show my blogs", and "Show sites I follow". The entire "Share my profile" question would seem to depend partly on what information my profile contains. For now, I have decided to keep my identity at least somewhat private, for a variety of complicated reasons -- so I won't be showing my real name, however I will show an e-mail address, though e-mail inboxes can quickly fill with spam. My first blogs were pretty much "practice" blogs, so there doesn't seem to be any point in showing them. At the moment, I don't particularly "follow" any sites; if I DID, I'm not sure I would want to share that info.
Under "Identity" we have "Username" (required), "Email Address", "Display Name" (required), "First Name", and "Last Name". Most of this is covered in the "Privacy" section.
Under "Photograph" there is only "Photo URL", but then you are given a choice between a photo "From your computer" or "From the web". This is a tricky one, but I suppose that if I am interested in privacy, I should either leave this blank or post something vague, amusing, or thought-provoking.
For "Audio Clip" there is only "Audio Clip URL". This is even more puzzling, and I will probably leave it blank for the forseeable future.
General includes "Gender" (with boxes for male, female, and "not specified"), "Birthday" (with an option to leave the YEAR blank, and a checkbox for "Show astrological signs"), "Homepage URL", "Wishlist URL" (with an option to "Create a wishlist"), and "IM username" (with a pull-down list of different IM services). Privacy concerns one again come into play, and there is also the question of relevance. For now, I guess I will admit that I am male. I have a couple different web sites, but none that are specifically about ME, and posting those would also raise privacy concerns. I might decide to post my astrological sign, but posting your astrological sign leads not-necessarily-correct assumptions about how I feel about astrological signs.
Then there is "Location" with "City/Town", "Region/State", and a pull-down list for "Country". I live in a small city in the midwestern USA -- beyond that, questions of privacy and relevance kick in.
"Work" includes a pull-down list for "Industry" and a blank to fill in for "Occupation". Personally, I consider this to be among the most complicated issues -- the entire issue of to what extent our "occupation" is relevant to who we are. I suppose I will deal with this in blog postings, but it's too complicated for a pull-down list and a filled-in blank.
Finally there is "Extended Info". This area provides larger blank boxes, and instructions to separate things by commas for the categories of "Interests", "Favorite Movies", "Favorite Music", and "Favorite Books". Actually, between the "Interests" and "Favorite Movies" is the "About Me" section, with a note that you may write as little or as much as you'd like, up to 1200 characters. The section concludes with the mysterious "Random Question" -- at this point, I can only assume Blogger generates a question. The big problem with these boxes is that without a detailed, complicated discussion, its easy for someone glancing at the lists to come up with wrong assumptions. Once in college I identified the works of Shakespeare as among my favorites, and a suspicious instructor asked WHY I like Shakespeare. When I mentioned that I found Shakespeare to be funny, the instructor replied that "Yes, his comedies are funny," and I quickly clarified that I thought the Shakespeare's TRAGEDIES were funny, much to the instructor's consternation.
Still, I will try and include some info about this stuff: Amongst my interests, in no particular order, are history and travel and animals and music, to name a few. I rarely attend movies in theaters any more, and, as a general rule, prefer somewhat older movies to more recent. This applies especially to horror movies -- if I get a chance to watch a Boris Karloff movie, I will, and will definitely choose it over any more recent "slasher" flick. This brings up the fact that since I do not rent or attend movies, I am pretty much limited to what they show on television, and they tend to no longer show many of my favorites, including comedies like WC Fields or the Marx Brothers -- neither of which I have seen in decades. I like old war movies, especially the stereotypical ones from WWII where a squad of soldiers is on some particular mission, like blowing up an ammo dump. I have a special fondness for the early Clint Eastwood "spaghetti westerns", which are among the most recent movies on my "favorites" list. I like James Bond movies but I have not seen the most recent ones. It is perhaps relevant to admit that I have not seen many of the most popular movies of the last forty years -- I have never seen any of the Godfather movies, and though I saw the original Star Wars I have not seen the sequals, and I have never seen "Apocalypse Now" though I like "Heart of Darkness".
I guess that moves us into the "favorite books" area (I will return to "favorite music"). I do not read nearly as much as I would like. In recent years I suppose I have read more books on dog training than any other topic. In general, I prefer non-fiction. I possess an extensive library of books about polar exploration -- "Scott of the Antarctic" is one of my heroes -- and also like books about adventures like mountain climbing and exotic travel. As with movies, I tend to favor older over newer books. In my younger days, book sales where libraries unloaded their older books made me giddy, and I have a LOT of books.
"Favorite Music" is an especially complicated topic for me. Though my music tastes vary from moment to moment, I like to think I have a certain appreciation for MOST music, with the general category of "rap" being a notable exception. One of the problems with discussing music is that you need to possess a certain basic knowledge to even know what you DON'T like. For example, I am not sure that I have much appreciation for "heavy metal", but I am also not sure that I know enough about what constitutes "heavy metal" to say that I don't like it. I am not a big fan of opera, especially Italian Opera. With time, I have developed a certain begrudging acceptance for some of the less melodic 20th century classical music, though I still have my doubts about whether all of it should be called "music".
There is so much music that I LIKE that it is overwhelming to try and list it. I like pop, rock (though my tastes now tend toward "oldies" rock), country (though I have not listened much to the country music produced over the last decade or two), classical, jazz (favoring dixieland and 1920s Chicago style over more recent varieties), and folk (I enjoy things like Irish music and Peruvian folk bands, but don't have much expertise in these areas). I rarely attend Broadway-style shows, and do not consider myself much of a fan, but I attended an amazing "Phantom of the Opera" performance and now have at least a partial appreciation for the genre.
My listening tastes seem to be influenced by the music that I can actually perform myself. I play various instruments, and sing for myself (I rarely sing publicly), and I find that I tend to listen to music that I can in some way perform. In my earlier days I played in a rock band, and I still play in brass bands and orchestras and a variety of smaller groups. One interesting result is that I more often listen to male vocalists, such as James Taylor or Gordon Lightfoot, than female vocalists, such as Joni Mitchell or Anne Murray, since it works better for ME to try and duplicate their songs. Some of my favorite recording artists are slightly obscure folksy types like John Prine and Steve Goodman and David Bromberg.
This leaves the "About Me" section, with its 1200 character limit. Though I am sure you can come up with a lot of thought-provoking discussions by trying to briefly describe yourself, I am not sure it results in anything approaching truth or accuracy. Since one of my most basic beliefs is that words are inherently unclear, and leave room for misinterpretation, I tend to use a LOT of words in an attempt to be clear. I find it very difficult to be comfortable with limiting my "About Me" section to 1200 characters, but I suppose that is the ONE area of the template I will attempt to fill in.
Truth is complicated.
When you click on "Edit Profile" it brings up eight sections: Privacy, Identity, Photograph, Audio Clip, General, Location, Work, and Extended Info.
Under "Privacy", there are checkboxes for "Share my profile", "Show my real name", "Show my email address", "Show my blogs", and "Show sites I follow". The entire "Share my profile" question would seem to depend partly on what information my profile contains. For now, I have decided to keep my identity at least somewhat private, for a variety of complicated reasons -- so I won't be showing my real name, however I will show an e-mail address, though e-mail inboxes can quickly fill with spam. My first blogs were pretty much "practice" blogs, so there doesn't seem to be any point in showing them. At the moment, I don't particularly "follow" any sites; if I DID, I'm not sure I would want to share that info.
Under "Identity" we have "Username" (required), "Email Address", "Display Name" (required), "First Name", and "Last Name". Most of this is covered in the "Privacy" section.
Under "Photograph" there is only "Photo URL", but then you are given a choice between a photo "From your computer" or "From the web". This is a tricky one, but I suppose that if I am interested in privacy, I should either leave this blank or post something vague, amusing, or thought-provoking.
For "Audio Clip" there is only "Audio Clip URL". This is even more puzzling, and I will probably leave it blank for the forseeable future.
General includes "Gender" (with boxes for male, female, and "not specified"), "Birthday" (with an option to leave the YEAR blank, and a checkbox for "Show astrological signs"), "Homepage URL", "Wishlist URL" (with an option to "Create a wishlist"), and "IM username" (with a pull-down list of different IM services). Privacy concerns one again come into play, and there is also the question of relevance. For now, I guess I will admit that I am male. I have a couple different web sites, but none that are specifically about ME, and posting those would also raise privacy concerns. I might decide to post my astrological sign, but posting your astrological sign leads not-necessarily-correct assumptions about how I feel about astrological signs.
Then there is "Location" with "City/Town", "Region/State", and a pull-down list for "Country". I live in a small city in the midwestern USA -- beyond that, questions of privacy and relevance kick in.
"Work" includes a pull-down list for "Industry" and a blank to fill in for "Occupation". Personally, I consider this to be among the most complicated issues -- the entire issue of to what extent our "occupation" is relevant to who we are. I suppose I will deal with this in blog postings, but it's too complicated for a pull-down list and a filled-in blank.
Finally there is "Extended Info". This area provides larger blank boxes, and instructions to separate things by commas for the categories of "Interests", "Favorite Movies", "Favorite Music", and "Favorite Books". Actually, between the "Interests" and "Favorite Movies" is the "About Me" section, with a note that you may write as little or as much as you'd like, up to 1200 characters. The section concludes with the mysterious "Random Question" -- at this point, I can only assume Blogger generates a question. The big problem with these boxes is that without a detailed, complicated discussion, its easy for someone glancing at the lists to come up with wrong assumptions. Once in college I identified the works of Shakespeare as among my favorites, and a suspicious instructor asked WHY I like Shakespeare. When I mentioned that I found Shakespeare to be funny, the instructor replied that "Yes, his comedies are funny," and I quickly clarified that I thought the Shakespeare's TRAGEDIES were funny, much to the instructor's consternation.
Still, I will try and include some info about this stuff: Amongst my interests, in no particular order, are history and travel and animals and music, to name a few. I rarely attend movies in theaters any more, and, as a general rule, prefer somewhat older movies to more recent. This applies especially to horror movies -- if I get a chance to watch a Boris Karloff movie, I will, and will definitely choose it over any more recent "slasher" flick. This brings up the fact that since I do not rent or attend movies, I am pretty much limited to what they show on television, and they tend to no longer show many of my favorites, including comedies like WC Fields or the Marx Brothers -- neither of which I have seen in decades. I like old war movies, especially the stereotypical ones from WWII where a squad of soldiers is on some particular mission, like blowing up an ammo dump. I have a special fondness for the early Clint Eastwood "spaghetti westerns", which are among the most recent movies on my "favorites" list. I like James Bond movies but I have not seen the most recent ones. It is perhaps relevant to admit that I have not seen many of the most popular movies of the last forty years -- I have never seen any of the Godfather movies, and though I saw the original Star Wars I have not seen the sequals, and I have never seen "Apocalypse Now" though I like "Heart of Darkness".
I guess that moves us into the "favorite books" area (I will return to "favorite music"). I do not read nearly as much as I would like. In recent years I suppose I have read more books on dog training than any other topic. In general, I prefer non-fiction. I possess an extensive library of books about polar exploration -- "Scott of the Antarctic" is one of my heroes -- and also like books about adventures like mountain climbing and exotic travel. As with movies, I tend to favor older over newer books. In my younger days, book sales where libraries unloaded their older books made me giddy, and I have a LOT of books.
"Favorite Music" is an especially complicated topic for me. Though my music tastes vary from moment to moment, I like to think I have a certain appreciation for MOST music, with the general category of "rap" being a notable exception. One of the problems with discussing music is that you need to possess a certain basic knowledge to even know what you DON'T like. For example, I am not sure that I have much appreciation for "heavy metal", but I am also not sure that I know enough about what constitutes "heavy metal" to say that I don't like it. I am not a big fan of opera, especially Italian Opera. With time, I have developed a certain begrudging acceptance for some of the less melodic 20th century classical music, though I still have my doubts about whether all of it should be called "music".
There is so much music that I LIKE that it is overwhelming to try and list it. I like pop, rock (though my tastes now tend toward "oldies" rock), country (though I have not listened much to the country music produced over the last decade or two), classical, jazz (favoring dixieland and 1920s Chicago style over more recent varieties), and folk (I enjoy things like Irish music and Peruvian folk bands, but don't have much expertise in these areas). I rarely attend Broadway-style shows, and do not consider myself much of a fan, but I attended an amazing "Phantom of the Opera" performance and now have at least a partial appreciation for the genre.
My listening tastes seem to be influenced by the music that I can actually perform myself. I play various instruments, and sing for myself (I rarely sing publicly), and I find that I tend to listen to music that I can in some way perform. In my earlier days I played in a rock band, and I still play in brass bands and orchestras and a variety of smaller groups. One interesting result is that I more often listen to male vocalists, such as James Taylor or Gordon Lightfoot, than female vocalists, such as Joni Mitchell or Anne Murray, since it works better for ME to try and duplicate their songs. Some of my favorite recording artists are slightly obscure folksy types like John Prine and Steve Goodman and David Bromberg.
This leaves the "About Me" section, with its 1200 character limit. Though I am sure you can come up with a lot of thought-provoking discussions by trying to briefly describe yourself, I am not sure it results in anything approaching truth or accuracy. Since one of my most basic beliefs is that words are inherently unclear, and leave room for misinterpretation, I tend to use a LOT of words in an attempt to be clear. I find it very difficult to be comfortable with limiting my "About Me" section to 1200 characters, but I suppose that is the ONE area of the template I will attempt to fill in.
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Blog First Anniversary
This blog turns one year old today. This is of debatable importance, but it does offer a good opportunity for reflection.
One of my primary reasons for doing this blog is TO LEARN TO DO A BLOG. In the words of Michelangelo, “Still I am learning.” In some ways, I have just begun to scratch the surface of blogging. For instance, so far I have posted only text -- no audio or visual data. Only recently have I begun to post links to other URLs, and in particular to a blog at which I posted a comment.
This brings up the idea that I believe only a few people have actually READ anything on this blog. I do not advertise it, and I have not informed even my friends and relatives of its title or URL, so visitors are quite rare, though there are some attempts to leave spam/ad comments. The entire “comments” aspect is one of the things I am learning about blogging. For now, I enjoy the occasional comment, both for learning about the blog process, and for stimulating ideas and discussion, but I am fine with having an extremely limited audience.
Overall, I am satisfied with the first year of this blog, though in many ways it is sort of running behind schedule. It has been a busier year than I anticipated -- non-blog-wise -- and there has not been much time for writing or for learning the intricacies of blogging. Still, I AM learning.
There are three blogging problems for which I have not found any solutions:
1) Realistically, I probably do not have enough “free” time to do this blog. Free time is a complicated topic, and too complicated to discuss here (because, among other things, there is not enough TIME ...).
2) To a certain extent, everything I write in this blog builds upon what I have already written. Yet I cannot assume that someone reading one of my blog entries has read everything leading up to it. In my mind, none of my blog entries truly stand alone. As a minimum, all are dependent upon certain basic concepts, like the idea that written communication is fundamentally unclear, and the fact that I believe the rule about always placing periods inside of quotation marks is WRONG. More specifically, I sometimes realize as I am writing that I need to explore some other idea FIRST -- so I stop writing and instead write about that first idea before writing about the second idea ... but there is no guarantee that someone reading the second idea will have read the first idea.
3) I have strong opinions about politics, and would like to share them, but among my strong opinions is the idea that we have become so polarized politically that many people automatically reject any idea that they believe comes from “the opposing side”. I truly believe that if George W. Bush and Barack Obama were to give precisely the same speech, Republicans would praise Bush’s speech and condemn Obama’s, while Democrats would praise Obama’s and condemn Bush’s. Furthermore, I believe this goes way beyond politics. Once I start stating my opinions on politics, those who perceive that they are on “the other side” may not even seriously consider my opinions on music or dog-training. One of the main points of this blog is COMMUNICATION. I cannot communicate if people refuse to consider my ideas.
As I said, I have no ready solutions for any of these problems. Regarding time, I will probably just struggle along with slightly lowered expectations. I hope, on average, to post one new blog entry each week. Regarding the fact that each blog entry builds upon the previous ones, I will perhaps try to link back to some of my earlier entries. In some ways, I keep stating the same ideas over and over again, so perhaps it doesn’t matter so much whether anyone has read any earlier entries. Regarding the problem of alienating people who then decide to automatically reject my opinions, there is probably nothing I can do, so I hope to go ahead and post more on politics and other controversial topics in the coming year, especially considering that there is an important election coming up.
I also hope to post some sort of “about” or “profile” page. I have mixed emotions about this. I like the blog entries to speak for themselves, but I feel a sort of vague obligation to post SOMETHING about myself.
This brings up the fact that after a full year, what I refer to as “this blog” continues to exist as basically two twin blogs, with mostly identical postings. The two blog hosts have different formats, though, so some things will be different, including the “about” or “profile” page. In particular, one format encourages creating specific “pages” -- I may post a “quotations” page or a “basic truths” page on that blog, but I am not sure how I will go about posting that information in the blog that does not have specific “pages”.
I continue to wonder whether I will run out of things to write about. So far, I generally have much more in mind to write about than I have time to write, and I struggle with figuring out which topics to choose, and whether the order of topics makes a difference in clarity and understanding. I feel a bit ... well, I suppose the best word is “guilty” ... about the fact that I tend to write things well in advance of actually posting them online. It lacks a certain spontaneity, but it gives me a chance to reconsider my words, and especially to try and arrange my ideas in a certain logical order.
Perhaps I should focus more upon the fact that there is a very real question about whether most of my blog entries will ever be read by anyone else, so most of my concerns are totally academic.
Truth is complicated.
One of my primary reasons for doing this blog is TO LEARN TO DO A BLOG. In the words of Michelangelo, “Still I am learning.” In some ways, I have just begun to scratch the surface of blogging. For instance, so far I have posted only text -- no audio or visual data. Only recently have I begun to post links to other URLs, and in particular to a blog at which I posted a comment.
This brings up the idea that I believe only a few people have actually READ anything on this blog. I do not advertise it, and I have not informed even my friends and relatives of its title or URL, so visitors are quite rare, though there are some attempts to leave spam/ad comments. The entire “comments” aspect is one of the things I am learning about blogging. For now, I enjoy the occasional comment, both for learning about the blog process, and for stimulating ideas and discussion, but I am fine with having an extremely limited audience.
Overall, I am satisfied with the first year of this blog, though in many ways it is sort of running behind schedule. It has been a busier year than I anticipated -- non-blog-wise -- and there has not been much time for writing or for learning the intricacies of blogging. Still, I AM learning.
There are three blogging problems for which I have not found any solutions:
1) Realistically, I probably do not have enough “free” time to do this blog. Free time is a complicated topic, and too complicated to discuss here (because, among other things, there is not enough TIME ...).
2) To a certain extent, everything I write in this blog builds upon what I have already written. Yet I cannot assume that someone reading one of my blog entries has read everything leading up to it. In my mind, none of my blog entries truly stand alone. As a minimum, all are dependent upon certain basic concepts, like the idea that written communication is fundamentally unclear, and the fact that I believe the rule about always placing periods inside of quotation marks is WRONG. More specifically, I sometimes realize as I am writing that I need to explore some other idea FIRST -- so I stop writing and instead write about that first idea before writing about the second idea ... but there is no guarantee that someone reading the second idea will have read the first idea.
3) I have strong opinions about politics, and would like to share them, but among my strong opinions is the idea that we have become so polarized politically that many people automatically reject any idea that they believe comes from “the opposing side”. I truly believe that if George W. Bush and Barack Obama were to give precisely the same speech, Republicans would praise Bush’s speech and condemn Obama’s, while Democrats would praise Obama’s and condemn Bush’s. Furthermore, I believe this goes way beyond politics. Once I start stating my opinions on politics, those who perceive that they are on “the other side” may not even seriously consider my opinions on music or dog-training. One of the main points of this blog is COMMUNICATION. I cannot communicate if people refuse to consider my ideas.
As I said, I have no ready solutions for any of these problems. Regarding time, I will probably just struggle along with slightly lowered expectations. I hope, on average, to post one new blog entry each week. Regarding the fact that each blog entry builds upon the previous ones, I will perhaps try to link back to some of my earlier entries. In some ways, I keep stating the same ideas over and over again, so perhaps it doesn’t matter so much whether anyone has read any earlier entries. Regarding the problem of alienating people who then decide to automatically reject my opinions, there is probably nothing I can do, so I hope to go ahead and post more on politics and other controversial topics in the coming year, especially considering that there is an important election coming up.
I also hope to post some sort of “about” or “profile” page. I have mixed emotions about this. I like the blog entries to speak for themselves, but I feel a sort of vague obligation to post SOMETHING about myself.
This brings up the fact that after a full year, what I refer to as “this blog” continues to exist as basically two twin blogs, with mostly identical postings. The two blog hosts have different formats, though, so some things will be different, including the “about” or “profile” page. In particular, one format encourages creating specific “pages” -- I may post a “quotations” page or a “basic truths” page on that blog, but I am not sure how I will go about posting that information in the blog that does not have specific “pages”.
I continue to wonder whether I will run out of things to write about. So far, I generally have much more in mind to write about than I have time to write, and I struggle with figuring out which topics to choose, and whether the order of topics makes a difference in clarity and understanding. I feel a bit ... well, I suppose the best word is “guilty” ... about the fact that I tend to write things well in advance of actually posting them online. It lacks a certain spontaneity, but it gives me a chance to reconsider my words, and especially to try and arrange my ideas in a certain logical order.
Perhaps I should focus more upon the fact that there is a very real question about whether most of my blog entries will ever be read by anyone else, so most of my concerns are totally academic.
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Beyond songs and guitars
At first glance, my previous blog entry, “Concerning songs and guitars”, would only seem relevant to someone with at least a rudimentary knowledge of how to play a guitar. Slightly deeper examination, however, of the blog entry -- which was itself a reply to another person’s blog entry -- and the associated “comments”, reveal several more general concepts. (Note: The "comments" are visible only by following the above link to the alternate version of this blog.)
First, there is the overwhelming importance of how each person defines individual words. In this case, my entire disagreement with the original blog post was based upon using a different definition of the word “song” than the blogger, Wheat Williams, had in mind. If I accept and use HIS definition, then we no longer have a disagreement, except perhaps over the definition, which is a completely different disagreement. I suspect wars have begun over disagreements that were actually just cases of differing definitions.
Then there are cases of personal taste and differing priorities. For example, I very much enjoy the SOUND of standard “open” chords -- what Wheat Williams refers to as “the ‘cliches’ of open chord voicings” -- while he specifically tunes his guitar in such a way that they cannot be played. Even if you do not know what an "open" guitar chord IS, you can understand the conflict between one person LIKING a particular sound, and another person avoiding it. There is no particular “right” or “wrong” here, regardless of how much someone likes or dislikes some particular aspect of guitar playing.
Finally, there is my spelling of “bar” chords, which Wheat Williams corrects to “barre”. I freely admit that I do not possess the expertise to debate anyone on this point. My focus has always been on PLAYING the guitar, and not so much on SPEAKING about it, and almost no focus at all on WRITING/SPELLING about it. It may be that “barre” is absolutely correct and “bar” is absolutely incorrect. Still, for those who may not even know what a barre/bar chord IS, I quote a few sources from the World Wide Web:
From YourDictionary.com, at http://www.yourdictionary.com/barre, there is:
barre (bär) also sp. bar; and
barre also bar (bär); which, incidentally, they define as “A fingering technique used with fretted stringed instruments in which a finger is laid across the fretboard to stop all or several strings at once.”
From Answers.com, at http://www.answers.com/topic/barre-chord, there is:
Barre chords (also known as bar chords, but more commonly spelled as "barre")
Timothy Woods, in a Suite101 article at
http://guitar.suite101.com/article.cfm/learn-how-to-play-bar-chords-on-guitar
“The bar chord (or barre chord, as it is also spelled)”
Harvey Reeves, in an ezine article at http://ezinearticles.com/?Guitar-Bar-Chords---The-Secret-of-How-to-Play-E---Shape-Bar-Chord&id=1814115
“I've been looking at a lot of advice on how to play bar chords, or barre chords (they're the same thing)”
Chip Evans, in the Acoustic Guitar Forum at http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-59043.html
“during my 35 years of teaching I have never heard the term "barre" used as much as it is on this forum. If english is your language the term "bar chord" is ok to use, in fact, they are easier to play :)”
But my favorite online barre/bar comment comes from Guitar for Beginners, at http://www.guitarforbeginners.com/barre.html
“Barre chords, or to use the less pretentious spelling, bar chords, are the reason the guitar is so cool.”
My POINT in listing these six online sources is NOT to debate the issue of which spelling is correct. Anyone can put anything on the Internet, and “barre” may still be absolutely correct and “bar” may still be absolutely incorrect. On an intellectual/philosophical level, the thing I enjoy most about the barre/bar “debate” is that it is NOT a debate between those who believe “barre” is correct and those who believe “bar” is correct. It is a debate between those who believe it MATTERS which spelling you use, and those who believe the two spellings are pretty much interchangeable. Such debates are tricky. It is usually easier to debate which of two positions is correct, rather than to debate whether the issue is significant -- and sometimes these two separate debates get confused with each other.
Still, I do not know enough about “barre” chords to know even whether the issue is significant. At this point, I am torn between just trusting Wheat Williams, who seems like a knowledgeable fellow, and sticking with my initial uneducated opinion that “barre” seems a bit pretentious.
I want to thank Wheat Williams for his original post, and his excellent blog, and for graciously contributing to THIS blog.
Truth is complicated.
First, there is the overwhelming importance of how each person defines individual words. In this case, my entire disagreement with the original blog post was based upon using a different definition of the word “song” than the blogger, Wheat Williams, had in mind. If I accept and use HIS definition, then we no longer have a disagreement, except perhaps over the definition, which is a completely different disagreement. I suspect wars have begun over disagreements that were actually just cases of differing definitions.
Then there are cases of personal taste and differing priorities. For example, I very much enjoy the SOUND of standard “open” chords -- what Wheat Williams refers to as “the ‘cliches’ of open chord voicings” -- while he specifically tunes his guitar in such a way that they cannot be played. Even if you do not know what an "open" guitar chord IS, you can understand the conflict between one person LIKING a particular sound, and another person avoiding it. There is no particular “right” or “wrong” here, regardless of how much someone likes or dislikes some particular aspect of guitar playing.
Finally, there is my spelling of “bar” chords, which Wheat Williams corrects to “barre”. I freely admit that I do not possess the expertise to debate anyone on this point. My focus has always been on PLAYING the guitar, and not so much on SPEAKING about it, and almost no focus at all on WRITING/SPELLING about it. It may be that “barre” is absolutely correct and “bar” is absolutely incorrect. Still, for those who may not even know what a barre/bar chord IS, I quote a few sources from the World Wide Web:
From YourDictionary.com, at http://www.yourdictionary.com/barre, there is:
barre (bär) also sp. bar; and
barre also bar (bär); which, incidentally, they define as “A fingering technique used with fretted stringed instruments in which a finger is laid across the fretboard to stop all or several strings at once.”
From Answers.com, at http://www.answers.com/topic/barre-chord, there is:
Barre chords (also known as bar chords, but more commonly spelled as "barre")
Timothy Woods, in a Suite101 article at
http://guitar.suite101.com/article.cfm/learn-how-to-play-bar-chords-on-guitar
“The bar chord (or barre chord, as it is also spelled)”
Harvey Reeves, in an ezine article at http://ezinearticles.com/?Guitar-Bar-Chords---The-Secret-of-How-to-Play-E---Shape-Bar-Chord&id=1814115
“I've been looking at a lot of advice on how to play bar chords, or barre chords (they're the same thing)”
Chip Evans, in the Acoustic Guitar Forum at http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-59043.html
“during my 35 years of teaching I have never heard the term "barre" used as much as it is on this forum. If english is your language the term "bar chord" is ok to use, in fact, they are easier to play :)”
But my favorite online barre/bar comment comes from Guitar for Beginners, at http://www.guitarforbeginners.com/barre.html
“Barre chords, or to use the less pretentious spelling, bar chords, are the reason the guitar is so cool.”
My POINT in listing these six online sources is NOT to debate the issue of which spelling is correct. Anyone can put anything on the Internet, and “barre” may still be absolutely correct and “bar” may still be absolutely incorrect. On an intellectual/philosophical level, the thing I enjoy most about the barre/bar “debate” is that it is NOT a debate between those who believe “barre” is correct and those who believe “bar” is correct. It is a debate between those who believe it MATTERS which spelling you use, and those who believe the two spellings are pretty much interchangeable. Such debates are tricky. It is usually easier to debate which of two positions is correct, rather than to debate whether the issue is significant -- and sometimes these two separate debates get confused with each other.
Still, I do not know enough about “barre” chords to know even whether the issue is significant. At this point, I am torn between just trusting Wheat Williams, who seems like a knowledgeable fellow, and sticking with my initial uneducated opinion that “barre” seems a bit pretentious.
I want to thank Wheat Williams for his original post, and his excellent blog, and for graciously contributing to THIS blog.
Truth is complicated.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Concerning songs and guitars
Among the many things I do not fully understand about blogging, there is the entire area of “comments” or replies. As far as I can determine, I have only had one real, legitimate, comment posted so far in my blog -- the blogging service has automatically filtered out others considered “spam”.
Among the murky issues, there is copyright. If I write it, whether it is posted on my blog or on someone else’s, it is automatically copyrighted to ME, just as anything YOU write but post on MY blog is copyrighted to YOU. This is a major reason many blogs frown on anonymous comments -- since anything YOU write remains YOUR intellectual property, the blog owner needs some way to trace ownership of the comment back to YOU.
The other day I ran across an interesting blog post which has inspired me to post a comment on that blog. To keep the ownership issues clear, I have decided to post my comment first here, on my own blog, before I post it as a comment elsewhere. Perhaps this is stupid or otherwise inappropriate. I continue to learn by doing.
The original blog post was entitled “How Rock Ruined Songs.” The blogger writes eloquently, and any attempt on my part to summarize his post will not do it justice, but he basically argues that since rock guitar parts tend to be played in specific keys, this limits the vocalist to singing in those keys, rather than freely transposing into keys more comfortable for the individual vocalist. As I said, this is an oversimplification, and if you are interested, you should refer back to the original post at http://wheatwilliams.com/wordpress/2009/09/18/how-rock-ruined-songs/.
Here is my response:
You make many interesting points, and I cannot disagree with your conclusions -- provided that you define “song” as a melody-driven primarily vocal endeavor, with other instruments relegated to supporting the vocalist or vocalists.
For me, it is more complicated. When I listen to music, whether live, recorded, or broadcast, I tend to view the vocalist(s) as simply one of the various instruments -- often a solo instrument, but not necessarily much more important than the others. Furthermore, I am increasingly convinced that the overall appeal and “sound” of any given piece of music depends more on the underlying chord structure than on the melody itself.
After voice, my formal musical training was piano and then trumpet, with guitar coming third among my main instruments. I perform most regularly on trumpet, in a brass quintet, a symphony orchestra, two brass bands and a variety of other groups. Incidentally, my favorite style for trumpet playing is jazz. My favorite style for guitar playing is folk.
While I am not sure about the proper musical term for this, one of my favorite things about the guitar is its irregularity. That is, due to the traditional tunings of the six strings, the chords used to accompany a song in the key of G sound completely different than the chords used to accompany a song in the key of A. On the piano or on the trumpet, I can play a song in either G or A, and the difference between the two keys will be mostly just the difference in pitch. On guitar, EVERYTHING changes -- or, at least, in my humble opinion, everything SHOULD change. I have little respect for those guitarists who eschew open chords and instead focus mostly on bar chords, making the keys sound interchangeable.
When I listen to a recording of a piano or a trumpet, it is a relatively straightforward matter to roughly duplicate what I hear. With a guitar, it can be an incredible challenge discerning how the guitarist used the particular combination of fingers and strings to achieve the sounds -- especially if the guitarist used a capo or non-standard tunings. Again, this is one of the things I love about the guitar, and, in my mind, what sets it apart from other instruments.
Incidentally, when I sing along with my guitar, I make extensive use of a capo to try and match the chords and fingerings of other guitarists, or simply to get the “sound” I am striving for, while suiting my own unique voice. I also accept that there are certain songs I simply cannot perform the way I would like to perform them, since even with a capo they fall outside of my vocal range.
I am not saying that a guitarist is obligated to copy the notes or keys of some other guitarist, although that is an option, and sometimes the best option. (Sometimes another instrument will attempt to duplicate the notes of a guitar riff -- this is one way to handle performing a guitar-based song in a completely different key.) The guitarist is simply obligated to attempt to contribute to each unique piece of music using their unique abilities and the unique characteristics of the instrument -- which they should embrace, rather than struggle against. Not every song is suited for every instrument or every instrumentalist or every vocalist, and there is no reason why they SHOULD be.
Finally, while I am not a music historian, it seems to me that “from the dawn of time” most early instruments capable of varied pitches tended to have a limited range and a limited number of available keys, so the vocalists would have to accommodate THEM. The development of instruments capable of easily performing in all keys came later ...
Still, it all comes down to your definition of “song.”
Among the murky issues, there is copyright. If I write it, whether it is posted on my blog or on someone else’s, it is automatically copyrighted to ME, just as anything YOU write but post on MY blog is copyrighted to YOU. This is a major reason many blogs frown on anonymous comments -- since anything YOU write remains YOUR intellectual property, the blog owner needs some way to trace ownership of the comment back to YOU.
The other day I ran across an interesting blog post which has inspired me to post a comment on that blog. To keep the ownership issues clear, I have decided to post my comment first here, on my own blog, before I post it as a comment elsewhere. Perhaps this is stupid or otherwise inappropriate. I continue to learn by doing.
The original blog post was entitled “How Rock Ruined Songs.” The blogger writes eloquently, and any attempt on my part to summarize his post will not do it justice, but he basically argues that since rock guitar parts tend to be played in specific keys, this limits the vocalist to singing in those keys, rather than freely transposing into keys more comfortable for the individual vocalist. As I said, this is an oversimplification, and if you are interested, you should refer back to the original post at http://wheatwilliams.com/wordpress/2009/09/18/how-rock-ruined-songs/.
Here is my response:
You make many interesting points, and I cannot disagree with your conclusions -- provided that you define “song” as a melody-driven primarily vocal endeavor, with other instruments relegated to supporting the vocalist or vocalists.
For me, it is more complicated. When I listen to music, whether live, recorded, or broadcast, I tend to view the vocalist(s) as simply one of the various instruments -- often a solo instrument, but not necessarily much more important than the others. Furthermore, I am increasingly convinced that the overall appeal and “sound” of any given piece of music depends more on the underlying chord structure than on the melody itself.
After voice, my formal musical training was piano and then trumpet, with guitar coming third among my main instruments. I perform most regularly on trumpet, in a brass quintet, a symphony orchestra, two brass bands and a variety of other groups. Incidentally, my favorite style for trumpet playing is jazz. My favorite style for guitar playing is folk.
While I am not sure about the proper musical term for this, one of my favorite things about the guitar is its irregularity. That is, due to the traditional tunings of the six strings, the chords used to accompany a song in the key of G sound completely different than the chords used to accompany a song in the key of A. On the piano or on the trumpet, I can play a song in either G or A, and the difference between the two keys will be mostly just the difference in pitch. On guitar, EVERYTHING changes -- or, at least, in my humble opinion, everything SHOULD change. I have little respect for those guitarists who eschew open chords and instead focus mostly on bar chords, making the keys sound interchangeable.
When I listen to a recording of a piano or a trumpet, it is a relatively straightforward matter to roughly duplicate what I hear. With a guitar, it can be an incredible challenge discerning how the guitarist used the particular combination of fingers and strings to achieve the sounds -- especially if the guitarist used a capo or non-standard tunings. Again, this is one of the things I love about the guitar, and, in my mind, what sets it apart from other instruments.
Incidentally, when I sing along with my guitar, I make extensive use of a capo to try and match the chords and fingerings of other guitarists, or simply to get the “sound” I am striving for, while suiting my own unique voice. I also accept that there are certain songs I simply cannot perform the way I would like to perform them, since even with a capo they fall outside of my vocal range.
I am not saying that a guitarist is obligated to copy the notes or keys of some other guitarist, although that is an option, and sometimes the best option. (Sometimes another instrument will attempt to duplicate the notes of a guitar riff -- this is one way to handle performing a guitar-based song in a completely different key.) The guitarist is simply obligated to attempt to contribute to each unique piece of music using their unique abilities and the unique characteristics of the instrument -- which they should embrace, rather than struggle against. Not every song is suited for every instrument or every instrumentalist or every vocalist, and there is no reason why they SHOULD be.
Finally, while I am not a music historian, it seems to me that “from the dawn of time” most early instruments capable of varied pitches tended to have a limited range and a limited number of available keys, so the vocalists would have to accommodate THEM. The development of instruments capable of easily performing in all keys came later ...
Still, it all comes down to your definition of “song.”
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
March
Every now and then, in a newspaper comic strip, the characters in the comic will notice, acknowledge, or otherwise deal with the fact that they ARE characters in a newspaper comic strip. They might climb up the frame at the edge of a panel, gaze across at some other comic strip, or simply make a comment acknowledging the fact that they are comic strip characters drawn by someone else, with no independent existence. A week or two ago, Beetle Bailey addressed complaints about his lines directly to "Mort", the writer of the comic strip. (I realize that I am making these statements as though the characters DID have some sort of independent existence or at least free will. Bear with me.) I generally enjoy this phenomenon.
I am unaware of any character in a book ever expressing awareness that they are simply characters in a book, but I suppose it has happened. There have definitely been cases of TV and movie characters expressing awareness of their setting, and sometimes interacting with or even attempting to break free. (Again, I am writing as if the characters existed outside of the writers, directors, actors and whatever, but I am still leading to a point.)
There is a relationship between form and content that we often strive or desire to keep hidden. A well-done book or television show or movie (or perhaps even comic strip) can make someone feel that it is real, and they are experiencing the experiences themselves, rather than merely reading or viewing something. Other times, such as when comic strip characters become aware of their surroundings on the newspaper page, the results can be quite interesting, amusing, or enjoyable.
Much of my personal artistic experience has been as an instrumental musician. Often, musicians must do their best to ignore the setting, and what may be going on around them, and focus on the music. Other times, interacting with the listeners may be a very important component of the performance.
This all leads me to the subject of this still-evolving blog. Up to this point, this blog has not been intended to be a journal of my day-to-day existence. In fact, most of the entries so far have been totally unrelated to day-to-day activities, concentrating instead on general ideas. I also have tried not to pay much attention to the fact that this IS a "blog". For that matter, a major purpose of this blog so far is for ME to better understand the entire concept of "blogging". Incidentally, at some point I will probably have to deal with the fact that since I do not tell anyone about this blog, nor post anything about it anywhere, I suspect it gets very, very few visitors -- though as far as I can tell, there has been ONE legitimate "comment", from a REAL person. For now, I am fine with the lack of blog traffic (though since I am already talking about comic strips, I must admit that over the past few weeks I have noticed that Jon in "Garfield" has been writing a blog, and a big part of the joke is that no one reads it).
So here I am, like Beetle Bailey, admitting that I am aware that this IS a blog rather than just a collection of ideas, AND realizing that the blog is not totally isolated from my real life. Specifically, I realize that I have not posted much yet in 2010, and not AT ALL during the month of March 2010. There is a complicated mix of reasons for the lack of posting, including things as simple as computer problems. Most of the other reasons result in a general lack of time. Though the time situation is still pretty bad, I am going to try to get back to posting more regularly -- at least once a week.
Notice how I am writing this as if someone is actually going to be READING it? Truth is complicated.
I am unaware of any character in a book ever expressing awareness that they are simply characters in a book, but I suppose it has happened. There have definitely been cases of TV and movie characters expressing awareness of their setting, and sometimes interacting with or even attempting to break free. (Again, I am writing as if the characters existed outside of the writers, directors, actors and whatever, but I am still leading to a point.)
There is a relationship between form and content that we often strive or desire to keep hidden. A well-done book or television show or movie (or perhaps even comic strip) can make someone feel that it is real, and they are experiencing the experiences themselves, rather than merely reading or viewing something. Other times, such as when comic strip characters become aware of their surroundings on the newspaper page, the results can be quite interesting, amusing, or enjoyable.
Much of my personal artistic experience has been as an instrumental musician. Often, musicians must do their best to ignore the setting, and what may be going on around them, and focus on the music. Other times, interacting with the listeners may be a very important component of the performance.
This all leads me to the subject of this still-evolving blog. Up to this point, this blog has not been intended to be a journal of my day-to-day existence. In fact, most of the entries so far have been totally unrelated to day-to-day activities, concentrating instead on general ideas. I also have tried not to pay much attention to the fact that this IS a "blog". For that matter, a major purpose of this blog so far is for ME to better understand the entire concept of "blogging". Incidentally, at some point I will probably have to deal with the fact that since I do not tell anyone about this blog, nor post anything about it anywhere, I suspect it gets very, very few visitors -- though as far as I can tell, there has been ONE legitimate "comment", from a REAL person. For now, I am fine with the lack of blog traffic (though since I am already talking about comic strips, I must admit that over the past few weeks I have noticed that Jon in "Garfield" has been writing a blog, and a big part of the joke is that no one reads it).
So here I am, like Beetle Bailey, admitting that I am aware that this IS a blog rather than just a collection of ideas, AND realizing that the blog is not totally isolated from my real life. Specifically, I realize that I have not posted much yet in 2010, and not AT ALL during the month of March 2010. There is a complicated mix of reasons for the lack of posting, including things as simple as computer problems. Most of the other reasons result in a general lack of time. Though the time situation is still pretty bad, I am going to try to get back to posting more regularly -- at least once a week.
Notice how I am writing this as if someone is actually going to be READING it? Truth is complicated.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Ridicule
Ridicule is the "nuclear weapon" of civilized debate. Used effectively, ridicule can destroy almost any position or statement, regardless of the truth, logic, or correctness of the position or statement, or the truth, logic, or correctness of the ridicule. Ridicule is generally blind to attributes like truth. Due to its overwhelming destructive power, ridicule is an oft-used weapon (unlike conventional nuclear weapons).
I suspect that those observing the use of ridicule in a debate tend to believe that if a position can be destroyed by ridicule, it had some weakness or flaw to begin with. I strongly disagree. I believe that the damage done to a position is simply a reflection of the skill of the ridiculer, unrelated to the strength or weakness of the position. Furthermore, I believe that at least some ridiculers are aware of this, knowing that if they use ridicule effectively they can make even undeniable facts appear to be ridiculous.
I would hope that, as a society, we would prefer our debates to be decided on the true merits of the opposing positions, rather than on the basis of "All is fair in love and war." This does not seem to be the case.
I must hasten to acknowledge that sometimes positions simply ARE ridiculous, and it is hard NOT to ridicule them. I should also point out that I am a big fan of humor, and believe our society would be better off if we tolerated more joking about sensitive topics -- but I actually see THAT as an almost-unrelated issue.
Truth is complicated.
I suspect that those observing the use of ridicule in a debate tend to believe that if a position can be destroyed by ridicule, it had some weakness or flaw to begin with. I strongly disagree. I believe that the damage done to a position is simply a reflection of the skill of the ridiculer, unrelated to the strength or weakness of the position. Furthermore, I believe that at least some ridiculers are aware of this, knowing that if they use ridicule effectively they can make even undeniable facts appear to be ridiculous.
I would hope that, as a society, we would prefer our debates to be decided on the true merits of the opposing positions, rather than on the basis of "All is fair in love and war." This does not seem to be the case.
I must hasten to acknowledge that sometimes positions simply ARE ridiculous, and it is hard NOT to ridicule them. I should also point out that I am a big fan of humor, and believe our society would be better off if we tolerated more joking about sensitive topics -- but I actually see THAT as an almost-unrelated issue.
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Definitions
A recurring theme in my writing is that words are not clear, due largely to the fact that each of us has our own continually-evolving definition of every word.
Once in college I faced a multiple-choice exam question about the precise definition of a particular scientific term. When the instructor marked my answer incorrect, I went to visit him carrying a textbook that defined the term exactly as I had defined it. He reached for a different textbook that defined the term as HE had defined it, though he admitted that he had never TAUGHT us that definition, or specified a textbook, so he reluctantly gave me full credit for my answer.
Even if we base our choice of words on precise dictionary definitions, someone armed with a different dictionary, or even a different edition of that same dictionary, can come up with a different meaning for our statements. If we use precisely the same definitions from the same dictionary, there is still the question of context and which part of the definition applies at that moment. The matter is further complicated by the fact that definitions are generally made up of even more words, each of which has its own definition.
Here is my very favorite definition, straight from my 1961 "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary" (Merriam-Webster):
"calender -- One of a Sufistic order of wandering mendicant dervishes."
The two things that make me love this definition so much are:
1) It takes a familiar-sounding word, calendar, changes one letter, and defines it in an unexpected way that has nothing to do with the passage of time or days or months of years (or even with pressing cloth, rubber, paper, etc. between rollers to make it smooth and glossy, which IS spelled "calender"), and
2) The definition itself contains words that most people will need to look up in the dictionary in order to understand.
If I start talking about a "calender", and I am talking about a wandering mendicant dervish, YOU probably can be forgiven for thinking I am talking about a document that breaks the year down into months and weeks and days. There may be some confusion, and possibly even some hard feelings, but probably we will eventually be able to clarify the misunderstanding.
The problem comes when the differences in our definitions of words are more subtle. When people listen to my mother tell stories of her youth, it is easy to describe her as a "flirt". She is appalled at being described with this word, which for her seems to include the idea of sexual promiscuity. For ME, being a "flirt" may LEAD to sexual promiscuity, but the word "flirt" does not intrinsically contain this implication (I would use a word more like "slut" if that was what I was trying to say).
The problem is amplified when people insist -- or believe without even thinking about it -- that THEIR definitions are correct and universal.
With some words, it is the very definition of the word that is controversial and causes problems, yet people refuse to acknowledge that the definition itself is controversial. Politically, we throw around "-ist" words like "racist" or "socialist" or "Zionist" without ever bothering to establish or acknowledge the subtleties and controversies surrounding the definitions.
I will often pause in a discussion to attempt to at least vaguely define my terms, but I realize I can never fully define anything, and there will always be room for misinterpretation, even if both you and I are both armed with the best dictionaries money can buy.
Truth is complicated.
Once in college I faced a multiple-choice exam question about the precise definition of a particular scientific term. When the instructor marked my answer incorrect, I went to visit him carrying a textbook that defined the term exactly as I had defined it. He reached for a different textbook that defined the term as HE had defined it, though he admitted that he had never TAUGHT us that definition, or specified a textbook, so he reluctantly gave me full credit for my answer.
Even if we base our choice of words on precise dictionary definitions, someone armed with a different dictionary, or even a different edition of that same dictionary, can come up with a different meaning for our statements. If we use precisely the same definitions from the same dictionary, there is still the question of context and which part of the definition applies at that moment. The matter is further complicated by the fact that definitions are generally made up of even more words, each of which has its own definition.
Here is my very favorite definition, straight from my 1961 "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary" (Merriam-Webster):
"calender -- One of a Sufistic order of wandering mendicant dervishes."
The two things that make me love this definition so much are:
1) It takes a familiar-sounding word, calendar, changes one letter, and defines it in an unexpected way that has nothing to do with the passage of time or days or months of years (or even with pressing cloth, rubber, paper, etc. between rollers to make it smooth and glossy, which IS spelled "calender"), and
2) The definition itself contains words that most people will need to look up in the dictionary in order to understand.
If I start talking about a "calender", and I am talking about a wandering mendicant dervish, YOU probably can be forgiven for thinking I am talking about a document that breaks the year down into months and weeks and days. There may be some confusion, and possibly even some hard feelings, but probably we will eventually be able to clarify the misunderstanding.
The problem comes when the differences in our definitions of words are more subtle. When people listen to my mother tell stories of her youth, it is easy to describe her as a "flirt". She is appalled at being described with this word, which for her seems to include the idea of sexual promiscuity. For ME, being a "flirt" may LEAD to sexual promiscuity, but the word "flirt" does not intrinsically contain this implication (I would use a word more like "slut" if that was what I was trying to say).
The problem is amplified when people insist -- or believe without even thinking about it -- that THEIR definitions are correct and universal.
With some words, it is the very definition of the word that is controversial and causes problems, yet people refuse to acknowledge that the definition itself is controversial. Politically, we throw around "-ist" words like "racist" or "socialist" or "Zionist" without ever bothering to establish or acknowledge the subtleties and controversies surrounding the definitions.
I will often pause in a discussion to attempt to at least vaguely define my terms, but I realize I can never fully define anything, and there will always be room for misinterpretation, even if both you and I are both armed with the best dictionaries money can buy.
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Stories
Stories, Memories, and Truth
It is widely believed that humans have told and re-told stories since long before there was writing, or books, or any sort of audio or video recording devices. My use here of the term "story" is intentionally vague. It is always difficult to know to what extent stories are based on truth, original fiction, or possibly earlier stories -- which may have been original fiction or based on truth. No matter how hard we try, even true stories are not totally accurate representations of past events, as they are told from a certain point of view, which can never be totally objective, and often evolve somewhat over time and to suit certain situations.
The latest research on human memory suggests that rather than accurate records of past events, our memories are constantly evolving, so that even the most vivid recollection may not be precisely accurate.
Under most circumstances, I sing the praises of truth. In some cases, though, truth is not particularly important or relevant. A story may illustrate an important concept, regardless of whether or not the story is true, just as a memory of an incident may serve as an important life lesson, whether or not the incident actually occurred as remembered. The problem comes only if one presents a fictional story or an erroneous memory as truth, especially if someone is deliberately misrepresenting the truth in order for their story to be more compelling or persuasive.
I try to be as honest as possible about the stories that I tell. Some of my favorite stories are probably pure fiction, while others seem to be based on real events or possibly-flawed memories of my own life. Now that we have access to not only spoken stories but also writing and audio and video recording devices, many of my favorite stories come from fictional television shows and movies (I believe that science fiction is the mythology of our time) -- so the story that I tell is based upon my possibly-flawed memory of something that was probably fiction, or at least fictionalized, to begin with. It can be argued that in this day and age a person should endeavor to accurately research the details of an episode of a 1960s TV series before making reference to it, but under the circumstances that seems to me to be both a waste of time AND irrelevant.
Stories and dubious memories -- of both real events and fictional accounts -- can be viewed as crossing over into the territory of hypothetical situations, where the parameters of reality are defined by the storytellers.
Truth is complicated, and sometimes irrelevant.
It is widely believed that humans have told and re-told stories since long before there was writing, or books, or any sort of audio or video recording devices. My use here of the term "story" is intentionally vague. It is always difficult to know to what extent stories are based on truth, original fiction, or possibly earlier stories -- which may have been original fiction or based on truth. No matter how hard we try, even true stories are not totally accurate representations of past events, as they are told from a certain point of view, which can never be totally objective, and often evolve somewhat over time and to suit certain situations.
The latest research on human memory suggests that rather than accurate records of past events, our memories are constantly evolving, so that even the most vivid recollection may not be precisely accurate.
Under most circumstances, I sing the praises of truth. In some cases, though, truth is not particularly important or relevant. A story may illustrate an important concept, regardless of whether or not the story is true, just as a memory of an incident may serve as an important life lesson, whether or not the incident actually occurred as remembered. The problem comes only if one presents a fictional story or an erroneous memory as truth, especially if someone is deliberately misrepresenting the truth in order for their story to be more compelling or persuasive.
I try to be as honest as possible about the stories that I tell. Some of my favorite stories are probably pure fiction, while others seem to be based on real events or possibly-flawed memories of my own life. Now that we have access to not only spoken stories but also writing and audio and video recording devices, many of my favorite stories come from fictional television shows and movies (I believe that science fiction is the mythology of our time) -- so the story that I tell is based upon my possibly-flawed memory of something that was probably fiction, or at least fictionalized, to begin with. It can be argued that in this day and age a person should endeavor to accurately research the details of an episode of a 1960s TV series before making reference to it, but under the circumstances that seems to me to be both a waste of time AND irrelevant.
Stories and dubious memories -- of both real events and fictional accounts -- can be viewed as crossing over into the territory of hypothetical situations, where the parameters of reality are defined by the storytellers.
Truth is complicated, and sometimes irrelevant.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Questions
Questions are complicated things. I believe that questions are generally under-rated, at least in our society, where we tend to focus on answers rather than questions, and on solutions rather than problems. The key to advancing knowledge is generally finding and asking the right questions, rather than coming up with the right answers. At the same time, anyone wanting to manipulate information can achieve the most success by manipulating the questions rather than the answers.
People often use questions as a rhetorical device, suggesting an answer from within the question rather than actually seeking an answer. Raising a question can be viewed as making a statement, especially when the question is related to an emotional issue. Personally, I often find myself having to clarify that, "I do not know the answer, and I am not suggesting an answer. I am truly asking a question!"
Unfortunately, in our polarized, opinionated society, it is commonplace that the questions themselves take on a power of their own. Questions become accusations, and accusations imply guilt. While we officially embrace the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty", anyone whose name is linked with something is to a certain extent forever tainted, even if it is eventually revealed that they had nothing to do with it.
As a consequence, we become afraid to raise the questions, or questions that might be worthy of at least cursory consideration get quickly pushed aside in an attempt to minimize their impact. This hinders communication, and limits the advancement of knowledge and understanding.
I do not have an solution to this. I am merely pointing out a problem.
People often use questions as a rhetorical device, suggesting an answer from within the question rather than actually seeking an answer. Raising a question can be viewed as making a statement, especially when the question is related to an emotional issue. Personally, I often find myself having to clarify that, "I do not know the answer, and I am not suggesting an answer. I am truly asking a question!"
Unfortunately, in our polarized, opinionated society, it is commonplace that the questions themselves take on a power of their own. Questions become accusations, and accusations imply guilt. While we officially embrace the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty", anyone whose name is linked with something is to a certain extent forever tainted, even if it is eventually revealed that they had nothing to do with it.
As a consequence, we become afraid to raise the questions, or questions that might be worthy of at least cursory consideration get quickly pushed aside in an attempt to minimize their impact. This hinders communication, and limits the advancement of knowledge and understanding.
I do not have an solution to this. I am merely pointing out a problem.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Problems
The latest research indicates our memories are not particularly reliable. Instead of accurate snapshots of our past, they evolve over time. Still, there are memories that take on importance as a sort of reference point for an idea, whether or not the memories accurately depict the past. This is all an introduction to the fact that I have vague memories of a specific episode of the 1960s TV series "Combat!" which may not be particularly accurate, but have remained to illustrate an important principle in my life.
The series dealt with a squad of American soldiers in Europe during World War II. As I remember it, one episode dealt with German snipers hiding unseen in trees, killing members of the squad as they passed. One American soldier, new to the squad, became increasingly agitated as the story progressed. He finally confessed that, although the snipers were camouflaged and hidden in the trees, he could clearly identify them, but for some reason (I believe it was religious) he could not bring himself to cause them harm, so watched powerlessly as other members of the squad were killed by the unseen snipers (which HE could clearly see). Eventually he was convinced to go into the forest with someone else, who could not see the snipers, and the soldier who COULD see the snipers would tell the other guy where they were, and that other guy would shoot them, and then there were no more snipers and the episode ended.
Whether or not my memories of this episode are accurate, it has always illustrated to me the idea that certain people have certain talents, and sometimes things that are easy or obvious for them are difficult or impossible or hidden from others. Perhaps we all have rare talents. It is well-documented that certain people have incredible math skills, able to almost instantly perform complex calculations that are difficult for others. Others can quickly solve any Rubik's cube. I am fair at math, but slow, and struggle with Rubik's cubes.
One talent that I seem to possess has always reminded me of the "Combat!" episode with the snipers hidden in trees. I can spot PROBLEMS. This does not seem like much of a talent, and certainly not unique. What makes it a talent is that often problems that are obvious to me seem difficult for others to see. For some, this is a dubious "gift" since I have no special abilities when it comes to finding SOLUTIONS. Like having the "gift of tongues" without the "gift of interpretation of tongues", or inventing a sound recording device without inventing a sound playback device. Still, often correctly identifying the problem is the key step in the process of solving it.
If nothing else, my own self-perception of having the gift of clearly seeing problems may provide some personal justification for writing this blog. Perhaps I can spot a problem that someone else has been having trouble seeing clearly, or at least provide some small insight that assists someone in utilizing their own talents more fully.
The series dealt with a squad of American soldiers in Europe during World War II. As I remember it, one episode dealt with German snipers hiding unseen in trees, killing members of the squad as they passed. One American soldier, new to the squad, became increasingly agitated as the story progressed. He finally confessed that, although the snipers were camouflaged and hidden in the trees, he could clearly identify them, but for some reason (I believe it was religious) he could not bring himself to cause them harm, so watched powerlessly as other members of the squad were killed by the unseen snipers (which HE could clearly see). Eventually he was convinced to go into the forest with someone else, who could not see the snipers, and the soldier who COULD see the snipers would tell the other guy where they were, and that other guy would shoot them, and then there were no more snipers and the episode ended.
Whether or not my memories of this episode are accurate, it has always illustrated to me the idea that certain people have certain talents, and sometimes things that are easy or obvious for them are difficult or impossible or hidden from others. Perhaps we all have rare talents. It is well-documented that certain people have incredible math skills, able to almost instantly perform complex calculations that are difficult for others. Others can quickly solve any Rubik's cube. I am fair at math, but slow, and struggle with Rubik's cubes.
One talent that I seem to possess has always reminded me of the "Combat!" episode with the snipers hidden in trees. I can spot PROBLEMS. This does not seem like much of a talent, and certainly not unique. What makes it a talent is that often problems that are obvious to me seem difficult for others to see. For some, this is a dubious "gift" since I have no special abilities when it comes to finding SOLUTIONS. Like having the "gift of tongues" without the "gift of interpretation of tongues", or inventing a sound recording device without inventing a sound playback device. Still, often correctly identifying the problem is the key step in the process of solving it.
If nothing else, my own self-perception of having the gift of clearly seeing problems may provide some personal justification for writing this blog. Perhaps I can spot a problem that someone else has been having trouble seeing clearly, or at least provide some small insight that assists someone in utilizing their own talents more fully.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
"I think"
In high school, and possibly at other points in my formal schooling, I had a running argument with more than one instructor over my use of phrases such as "in my opinion" and "I believe" and especially "I think". It's always dangerous and extremely inaccurate to try to state the positions of those with whom you disagree, but I believe their objections were based upon the ideas that these phrases "weakened" your writing, and were unnecessary since anything YOU wrote was clearly YOUR opinion or YOUR belief or what YOU thought.
My opposition was based on the idea that sometimes a person writes their own opinions, beliefs, and thoughts, while other times they state facts -- and it is important to distinguish between the two, and it is important to acknowledge that each of us knows the difference. (I freely acknowledge that since we can be certain of NOTHING, including our own existence, the very idea that there ARE facts is open for debate. Still, I find "facts" to be a useful concept, given that we seem to exist among facts in a factual world -- whether or not we actually DO.)
Neither my instructors nor I ever backed down -- one of them wrote something like "I THINK you were a good student" in my high school yearbook -- and now that my writing is not regularly critiqued by them, I rarely have to face the issue directly. I believe, though, that the issue is becoming more important, as increasing numbers of people appear to be losing sight of the line between opinion and fact.
This is manifested in a number of ways. For one thing, we have a certain denial of facts. Many people take the position that if I believe one thing, and you believe something completely different, then we are both entitled to our beliefs, and they are both equally correct, including with regard to situations where these beliefs involve basic, provable facts, like whether the earth is flat or round.
Our society seems to be moving toward the belief that "facts" are determined by opinion polls and majority votes. If 52% of people BELIEVE something to be true, then it is true. This logic is actually ONLY correct in terms of speaking about what the majority believes to be true, and nothing else. For example, if 52% of Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln was our best President, then we can accurately state that the majority of Americans believe Abraham Lincoln was our best President. The fact that the majority BELIEVES he was the best President does not mean that he WAS the best President (actually determining the "best" President is impossible, since it will always involve personal opinion).
I suspect that some of the blame for this blurring of the line between opinion and fact falls on the increasing availability of information. Since we now have relatively easy access to great amounts of information about most topics, we are emboldened to consider our opinions to be just as valid as any other person's opinions. Millions of Americans feel free to pronounce an accused criminal "guilty" or "innocent" prior to any sort of trial. We become more and more politically polarized, as both sides are CERTAIN that THEIR side is correct -- and they use the outcome of polls and votes as "proof" that THEIR side is "right".
Perhaps this blurring of the line between opinion and fact is also the predictable outcome of people being taught since grammar school NOT to label their own pure opinions as opinions, but to state them as facts.
My opposition was based on the idea that sometimes a person writes their own opinions, beliefs, and thoughts, while other times they state facts -- and it is important to distinguish between the two, and it is important to acknowledge that each of us knows the difference. (I freely acknowledge that since we can be certain of NOTHING, including our own existence, the very idea that there ARE facts is open for debate. Still, I find "facts" to be a useful concept, given that we seem to exist among facts in a factual world -- whether or not we actually DO.)
Neither my instructors nor I ever backed down -- one of them wrote something like "I THINK you were a good student" in my high school yearbook -- and now that my writing is not regularly critiqued by them, I rarely have to face the issue directly. I believe, though, that the issue is becoming more important, as increasing numbers of people appear to be losing sight of the line between opinion and fact.
This is manifested in a number of ways. For one thing, we have a certain denial of facts. Many people take the position that if I believe one thing, and you believe something completely different, then we are both entitled to our beliefs, and they are both equally correct, including with regard to situations where these beliefs involve basic, provable facts, like whether the earth is flat or round.
Our society seems to be moving toward the belief that "facts" are determined by opinion polls and majority votes. If 52% of people BELIEVE something to be true, then it is true. This logic is actually ONLY correct in terms of speaking about what the majority believes to be true, and nothing else. For example, if 52% of Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln was our best President, then we can accurately state that the majority of Americans believe Abraham Lincoln was our best President. The fact that the majority BELIEVES he was the best President does not mean that he WAS the best President (actually determining the "best" President is impossible, since it will always involve personal opinion).
I suspect that some of the blame for this blurring of the line between opinion and fact falls on the increasing availability of information. Since we now have relatively easy access to great amounts of information about most topics, we are emboldened to consider our opinions to be just as valid as any other person's opinions. Millions of Americans feel free to pronounce an accused criminal "guilty" or "innocent" prior to any sort of trial. We become more and more politically polarized, as both sides are CERTAIN that THEIR side is correct -- and they use the outcome of polls and votes as "proof" that THEIR side is "right".
Perhaps this blurring of the line between opinion and fact is also the predictable outcome of people being taught since grammar school NOT to label their own pure opinions as opinions, but to state them as facts.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Arrogance
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "arrogance" as "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions". In their online thesaurus, they call it "an exaggerated sense of one's importance that shows itself in the making of excessive or unjustified claims" and give two antonyms, "humility" and "modesty".
Modern Americans have a complicated relationship with the concept of arrogance. At most times, in most circles, to call someone "arrogant" is considered a criticism, while to call them "humble" or "modest" is considered praise. Yet we also praise "self-confidence" -- which I consider to be a close cousin of arrogance -- and embrace phrases such as "Fortune favors the bold" (credited to the Roman epic poet, Virgil). When compared with citizens of other countries, Americans are sometimes described as "arrogant", which we deny while insisting that this is "the greatest country in the world".
In examining the Merriam-Webster statements on arrogance, I suppose it is a matter of degree, including the "overbearing manner" and "the making of excessive or unjustified claims". If someone is the best at something, and knows they are the best, and claims to be the best, then I suppose this is not "excessive or unjustified", though there is still the issue of the "overbearing manner", which may be largely in the eye of the beholder. Certainly many of our world leaders and celebrities may be viewed as arrogant, but perhaps it all comes down to where you draw the line between arrogance and confidence. OR perhaps we claim to embrace the idea that arrogance is "bad", while actually being drawn to it.
I have been thinking about the idea of arrogance as it relates to having a personal blog. I already have several web sites, with the basic goal of sharing specific information with the rest of the world, including information about musical groups and information about family history (which is targeted mostly at members of my extended family, rather than the entire world). These web sites do not seem particularly "arrogant" to me; people might want access to the information, and the web sites provide it. A blog sharing my personal musings about ideas, rather than specific information, moves toward more questionable territory. The idea that I somehow believe the entire World Wide Web community should have access to these musings, or more specifically that ANYONE should spend their time viewing these musings, is troublesome. I tell myself that the blog is an outlet for ME, and no one is under any obligation to visit it, and I do not particularly make any claims about its value ... yet it still feels intrinsically arrogant.
This remains troubling a month into this blog. I will attempt to deal with it more in a future entry that I plan to call "Problems".
Modern Americans have a complicated relationship with the concept of arrogance. At most times, in most circles, to call someone "arrogant" is considered a criticism, while to call them "humble" or "modest" is considered praise. Yet we also praise "self-confidence" -- which I consider to be a close cousin of arrogance -- and embrace phrases such as "Fortune favors the bold" (credited to the Roman epic poet, Virgil). When compared with citizens of other countries, Americans are sometimes described as "arrogant", which we deny while insisting that this is "the greatest country in the world".
In examining the Merriam-Webster statements on arrogance, I suppose it is a matter of degree, including the "overbearing manner" and "the making of excessive or unjustified claims". If someone is the best at something, and knows they are the best, and claims to be the best, then I suppose this is not "excessive or unjustified", though there is still the issue of the "overbearing manner", which may be largely in the eye of the beholder. Certainly many of our world leaders and celebrities may be viewed as arrogant, but perhaps it all comes down to where you draw the line between arrogance and confidence. OR perhaps we claim to embrace the idea that arrogance is "bad", while actually being drawn to it.
I have been thinking about the idea of arrogance as it relates to having a personal blog. I already have several web sites, with the basic goal of sharing specific information with the rest of the world, including information about musical groups and information about family history (which is targeted mostly at members of my extended family, rather than the entire world). These web sites do not seem particularly "arrogant" to me; people might want access to the information, and the web sites provide it. A blog sharing my personal musings about ideas, rather than specific information, moves toward more questionable territory. The idea that I somehow believe the entire World Wide Web community should have access to these musings, or more specifically that ANYONE should spend their time viewing these musings, is troublesome. I tell myself that the blog is an outlet for ME, and no one is under any obligation to visit it, and I do not particularly make any claims about its value ... yet it still feels intrinsically arrogant.
This remains troubling a month into this blog. I will attempt to deal with it more in a future entry that I plan to call "Problems".
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Letters to the Editor
I enjoy reading "Letters to the Editor" in our local newspaper. I enjoy the letters for various reasons. I am interested in peoples' opinions. Sometimes I am amazed that ANYONE is concerned enough about THAT topic to write a "Letter to the Editor".
Often the letters deal with familiar controversies. Sometimes I consider them to be the most eloquent writing I have encountered regarding a particular issue, while others are barely coherent. Occasionally, there will be a letter-writer who obviously feels very strongly about the issue, but after reading and re-reading their letter, I cannot discern which side they are vehemently supporting. Some letters seem to me to be making a careful, logical, iron-clad case for one side of an issue, but then reach the opposite conclusion from what I had expected.
This brings up the troubling fact that people with opposing views may appear to use precisely the same facts and same logic and same arguments to come to opposite conclusions, while being incredulous that anyone could possibly hold the opposing belief.
This further leads to the idea that in our opinionated, polarized society, many people judge ideas at least partly based on the apparent source of the idea. An idea expressed by someone from "our side" makes good sense, while the identical idea put forth by someone from "their side" is preposterous. I hasten to admit that there is a certain logic to this. An idea expressed by someone with whom we tend to agree will logically be initially viewed in a more favorable light than an idea expressed by someone with whom we tend to disagree. This is one of the shortcuts we use to manage life. Since we cannot know everything, or be experts on everything, we build up a circle of those whom we trust, and accept their ideas less critically than we accept ideas from those outside our circle of trust.
When reading "Letters to the Editor", it is difficult to not glance first at the name of the letter-writer, and often these names are familiar, and often you can guess which side they will support, and, indeed, whether their letter will be worth reading. I suppose that in a perfect world, I would read every letter, no matter what, and never know the names or views of the writers until I finished their letter. Life is too short for that.
In a perfect world, it would be enlightening to realize that those with whom we disagree sometimes make excellent, valid points, and that sometimes information that seems to point to an inescapable conclusion points just as easily to an opposing conclusion. Sadly, this is not a perfect world.
This especially applies to the world of blogging. Unless a blogger takes steps to mask their opinions, eventually anyone reading the blog will come to a realization of whether the blogger is on "their side" or "the other side" and at that point, true communication becomes much more difficult. It might be enlightening for both you and me if you could read each entry in this blog, and especially on controversial subjects, without pre-existing knowledge of my opinions or point of view, but that cannot last for long.
At the same time, one of the whole POINTS of communication, and one of the points of READING a blog, is to try and figure out "where a person is coming from" and what they are trying to say, gradually increasing your understanding of their ideas. To read or hear every word from a fresh perspective would be enlightening, but probably also counterproductive.
This gets even more complicated when you include the idea that life is short, and no one has time to read every letter to the editor or every blog entry -- though there may be something to be learned from even bad ideas. In the end, I guess all I can suggest is that if you do decide to take YOUR valuable time to listen to someone or read a letter to the editor or read this blog, you should try to understand what they are actually trying to communicate, rather than what you expect or believe they are trying to communicate.
Truth is complicated.
Often the letters deal with familiar controversies. Sometimes I consider them to be the most eloquent writing I have encountered regarding a particular issue, while others are barely coherent. Occasionally, there will be a letter-writer who obviously feels very strongly about the issue, but after reading and re-reading their letter, I cannot discern which side they are vehemently supporting. Some letters seem to me to be making a careful, logical, iron-clad case for one side of an issue, but then reach the opposite conclusion from what I had expected.
This brings up the troubling fact that people with opposing views may appear to use precisely the same facts and same logic and same arguments to come to opposite conclusions, while being incredulous that anyone could possibly hold the opposing belief.
This further leads to the idea that in our opinionated, polarized society, many people judge ideas at least partly based on the apparent source of the idea. An idea expressed by someone from "our side" makes good sense, while the identical idea put forth by someone from "their side" is preposterous. I hasten to admit that there is a certain logic to this. An idea expressed by someone with whom we tend to agree will logically be initially viewed in a more favorable light than an idea expressed by someone with whom we tend to disagree. This is one of the shortcuts we use to manage life. Since we cannot know everything, or be experts on everything, we build up a circle of those whom we trust, and accept their ideas less critically than we accept ideas from those outside our circle of trust.
When reading "Letters to the Editor", it is difficult to not glance first at the name of the letter-writer, and often these names are familiar, and often you can guess which side they will support, and, indeed, whether their letter will be worth reading. I suppose that in a perfect world, I would read every letter, no matter what, and never know the names or views of the writers until I finished their letter. Life is too short for that.
In a perfect world, it would be enlightening to realize that those with whom we disagree sometimes make excellent, valid points, and that sometimes information that seems to point to an inescapable conclusion points just as easily to an opposing conclusion. Sadly, this is not a perfect world.
This especially applies to the world of blogging. Unless a blogger takes steps to mask their opinions, eventually anyone reading the blog will come to a realization of whether the blogger is on "their side" or "the other side" and at that point, true communication becomes much more difficult. It might be enlightening for both you and me if you could read each entry in this blog, and especially on controversial subjects, without pre-existing knowledge of my opinions or point of view, but that cannot last for long.
At the same time, one of the whole POINTS of communication, and one of the points of READING a blog, is to try and figure out "where a person is coming from" and what they are trying to say, gradually increasing your understanding of their ideas. To read or hear every word from a fresh perspective would be enlightening, but probably also counterproductive.
This gets even more complicated when you include the idea that life is short, and no one has time to read every letter to the editor or every blog entry -- though there may be something to be learned from even bad ideas. In the end, I guess all I can suggest is that if you do decide to take YOUR valuable time to listen to someone or read a letter to the editor or read this blog, you should try to understand what they are actually trying to communicate, rather than what you expect or believe they are trying to communicate.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Roscoe
I have been doing this blog for three weeks now, and I may be reaching the point where the preliminary disclaimers and legal statements are out of the way, and I can get down to actually "blogging" -- whatever THAT turns out to be. Perhaps I am looking at this the wrong way, but I see it as laying a foundation -- not necessarily much fun, but important for everything that will follow.
During those three weeks, the world continued to turn, there were some interesting political developments, local instrumental music groups began their "school-year" season, and Roscoe the cat slipped off somewhere to die. (WARNING: If you would prefer not to read details of a cat's final illness, stop here.)
I have many animal friends, and I am becoming too familiar with animal deaths. Roscoe showed up last fall, full grown, and was friendly and lovable, though he had an unfortunate tendency to "spray" inside. I thought perhaps having him "fixed" would help, but it turned out he had already been fixed in his life before he arrived here. Still, he was a very good cat.
The most notable thing about Roscoe's death was that it took so long. Roscoe had been diagnosed with terminal, inoperable, untreatable, "wildly malignant" cancer at the end of May/beginning of June, with a projected life expectancy of less than one month. The cancer was under his tongue, so it would interfere with his eating, and he drooled a lot and smelled bad -- I took him to the vet for what I assumed was an infected tooth, and that's when the cancer was discovered. The vet prescribed pain medication to be given every other day, and Roscoe took it without complaining much, and never seemed to acknowledge any pain. He would sometimes bleed, and sometimes quite a lot. Occasionally, he would look like a child who had stuck his face into a bowl of ketchup.
His appetite declined over time, or perhaps the pain and difficulty of eating with the cancer under his tongue made it not worth the effort. I am not getting any compensation for stating that he developed a special fondness for Friskies "Mixed Grill" flavor, though towards the end he would mostly sniff at it and walk away. He enjoyed ripping into unopened bags of both dry cat food and dry dog food, and he would eat some of what he tore into. He liked to eat fish and drink milk, though sometimes the milk would get pretty bloody.
I suppose I should mention that he lost a lot of fur and looked awful, and we advised the neighbors of his situation, lest they become alarmed at the site of this smelly, bloody, fur-losing cat. I am happy to point out that even in this condition, children loved him, though their parents might cringe when they cuddled him. I should also mention that his life perhaps could have been prolonged with tube feedings, if that had seemed like a good idea.
Perhaps later in this blog I will discuss animal euthanasia. For now, I will just say that Roscoe continued to live life on his own terms and to the fullest for months after he was expected to be dead. Most nights, he would sleep inside, but for the last few days he preferred staying outside. By the evening of September 17, he was thin and weak, and I spent a long time petting him after he had some milk, and then he got up and took off in an unusual direction. I have not seen him again.
During those three weeks, the world continued to turn, there were some interesting political developments, local instrumental music groups began their "school-year" season, and Roscoe the cat slipped off somewhere to die. (WARNING: If you would prefer not to read details of a cat's final illness, stop here.)
I have many animal friends, and I am becoming too familiar with animal deaths. Roscoe showed up last fall, full grown, and was friendly and lovable, though he had an unfortunate tendency to "spray" inside. I thought perhaps having him "fixed" would help, but it turned out he had already been fixed in his life before he arrived here. Still, he was a very good cat.
The most notable thing about Roscoe's death was that it took so long. Roscoe had been diagnosed with terminal, inoperable, untreatable, "wildly malignant" cancer at the end of May/beginning of June, with a projected life expectancy of less than one month. The cancer was under his tongue, so it would interfere with his eating, and he drooled a lot and smelled bad -- I took him to the vet for what I assumed was an infected tooth, and that's when the cancer was discovered. The vet prescribed pain medication to be given every other day, and Roscoe took it without complaining much, and never seemed to acknowledge any pain. He would sometimes bleed, and sometimes quite a lot. Occasionally, he would look like a child who had stuck his face into a bowl of ketchup.
His appetite declined over time, or perhaps the pain and difficulty of eating with the cancer under his tongue made it not worth the effort. I am not getting any compensation for stating that he developed a special fondness for Friskies "Mixed Grill" flavor, though towards the end he would mostly sniff at it and walk away. He enjoyed ripping into unopened bags of both dry cat food and dry dog food, and he would eat some of what he tore into. He liked to eat fish and drink milk, though sometimes the milk would get pretty bloody.
I suppose I should mention that he lost a lot of fur and looked awful, and we advised the neighbors of his situation, lest they become alarmed at the site of this smelly, bloody, fur-losing cat. I am happy to point out that even in this condition, children loved him, though their parents might cringe when they cuddled him. I should also mention that his life perhaps could have been prolonged with tube feedings, if that had seemed like a good idea.
Perhaps later in this blog I will discuss animal euthanasia. For now, I will just say that Roscoe continued to live life on his own terms and to the fullest for months after he was expected to be dead. Most nights, he would sleep inside, but for the last few days he preferred staying outside. By the evening of September 17, he was thin and weak, and I spent a long time petting him after he had some milk, and then he got up and took off in an unusual direction. I have not seen him again.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Policies
I have been doing some reading recently regarding blogs, bloggers, and "Codes of Conduct." There seems to be some concern in some circles that blogs may incite or encourage violence and a general lack of civility. At the same time, there is not necessarily any effective way to regulate this, AND you don't want to stifle freedom and creativity.
As I learn more about blogs and blogging, I have been surprised to realize there are quite a few legal as well as ethical and moral issues related to blogs. I am doing my best to deal with the legal issues in what seems to be "standard, accepted" fashion, with a legal notice posted separately from my blog "policies". I will strive to maintain a legal blog.
Though many of the legal issues related to blogs are still being sorted out, copyright infringement is a major problem. Since YOU own any comments that you place on MY blog (unless you have posted another person's already-copyrighted material), you have the legal right to ask me to delete anything that you have posted. Therefore, I have to have some way to identify you, so I will know it is YOU if you ask me to remove something, SO I will have to have some sort of contact information. Since I am new to all of this, I cannot predict exactly how the system will actually work.
As far as general rules and conduct goes, I will probably strive to keep this blog "G"-rated. I personally am not much of a fan of profanity -- I can see where it may have its place, but it tends to get over-used and therefore loses impact.
I have no problem with disagreement and civilized debate. In fact, I encourage it. I believe the world would be better off with more honest and open debate -- but it needs to be an attempt at true communication, and not just blind name-calling. I also encourage people to stay "on topic" -- one of the things that gets in the way of communication is countering a statement with an argument that is completely off topic. (On the Internet, there are also the annoying off-topic references to things like dating web sites and weight-loss products, which I will attempt to keep off this blog.)
I am a big fan of honesty, but there is often no way to determine whether a person is being honest. I am also a fan of privacy and anonymity. The bottom line is that I always encourage everyone to keep their private matters private, but try not to lie. For example, if you don't want to say where you are from, fine, but don't say you are from Colorado if you are from Indiana. There is no way to regulate this, so all I can say is that I hope you do not lie, and that I do not plan on telling any lies. I also encourage you not to violate the privacy of anyone else, including me. If you try to post personal information about someone other than yourself, I will do my best to censor it. This includes just about ANY information about ME, in case you are someone who knows me or knows information about me.
My "Privacy Policy" should be obvious. I will never sell or otherwise distribute your e-mail address, nor will I send you any mass e-mails of any kind, but depending on how everything works out, I will probably contact you before I post anything from you, just to make sure the e-mail address is valid. I do not believe ANYONE should be allowed to sell or distribute your e-mail address without your specific consent. However, as stated in the "legal" section, in cases of alleged or suspected illegal content in any comments you post, I will reluctantly share contact information with any requesting authorities.
This is all uncharted territory for me, and will probably evolve.
As I learn more about blogs and blogging, I have been surprised to realize there are quite a few legal as well as ethical and moral issues related to blogs. I am doing my best to deal with the legal issues in what seems to be "standard, accepted" fashion, with a legal notice posted separately from my blog "policies". I will strive to maintain a legal blog.
Though many of the legal issues related to blogs are still being sorted out, copyright infringement is a major problem. Since YOU own any comments that you place on MY blog (unless you have posted another person's already-copyrighted material), you have the legal right to ask me to delete anything that you have posted. Therefore, I have to have some way to identify you, so I will know it is YOU if you ask me to remove something, SO I will have to have some sort of contact information. Since I am new to all of this, I cannot predict exactly how the system will actually work.
As far as general rules and conduct goes, I will probably strive to keep this blog "G"-rated. I personally am not much of a fan of profanity -- I can see where it may have its place, but it tends to get over-used and therefore loses impact.
I have no problem with disagreement and civilized debate. In fact, I encourage it. I believe the world would be better off with more honest and open debate -- but it needs to be an attempt at true communication, and not just blind name-calling. I also encourage people to stay "on topic" -- one of the things that gets in the way of communication is countering a statement with an argument that is completely off topic. (On the Internet, there are also the annoying off-topic references to things like dating web sites and weight-loss products, which I will attempt to keep off this blog.)
I am a big fan of honesty, but there is often no way to determine whether a person is being honest. I am also a fan of privacy and anonymity. The bottom line is that I always encourage everyone to keep their private matters private, but try not to lie. For example, if you don't want to say where you are from, fine, but don't say you are from Colorado if you are from Indiana. There is no way to regulate this, so all I can say is that I hope you do not lie, and that I do not plan on telling any lies. I also encourage you not to violate the privacy of anyone else, including me. If you try to post personal information about someone other than yourself, I will do my best to censor it. This includes just about ANY information about ME, in case you are someone who knows me or knows information about me.
My "Privacy Policy" should be obvious. I will never sell or otherwise distribute your e-mail address, nor will I send you any mass e-mails of any kind, but depending on how everything works out, I will probably contact you before I post anything from you, just to make sure the e-mail address is valid. I do not believe ANYONE should be allowed to sell or distribute your e-mail address without your specific consent. However, as stated in the "legal" section, in cases of alleged or suspected illegal content in any comments you post, I will reluctantly share contact information with any requesting authorities.
This is all uncharted territory for me, and will probably evolve.
Legal Stuff
I am not a lawyer, and I am new to blogging. Until recently, I would not have realized there needed to be a "Legal Stuff" entry on a blog, and it seems unfortunate. Still, we live in civilization with laws for the welfare of all (I am not going to debate this statement at this point).
Most of my legal info comes from the World Wide Web, especially an article called, "Copyright Explained: I May Copy It, Right?" (http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/07/07/copyright-explained-i-may-copy-it-right/) This article is extensive and sobering.
According to my understanding, anything anyone creates and posts on the Internet is automatically copyrighted. Anything I write is MINE, anything you write is YOURS. I am responsible for what I post, and you are responsible for what you post. Anyone reading this blog should be aware that they may find material on this blog that is offensive or inaccurate. There are legal gray areas, and I may incur some liability for comments posted on this blog. Therefore I reserve the right to delete comments or keep them from appearing in the first place, without written notice or explanation.
Since you are responsible for any comments you post, and have the right to ask me to remove them, I must have some way of verifying that it is indeed YOU who are asking me to remove them. Therefore, I must collect at least basic contact information before allowing any of your comments. Also, since I share liability in cases of alleged or suspected illegal content in any comments you write, I will reluctantly share this contact information with any requesting authorities.
I am new to this, and both my own knowledge and the laws are constantly evolving, so I would expect that this legal notice will evolve as well. Laws are complicated.
Most of my legal info comes from the World Wide Web, especially an article called, "Copyright Explained: I May Copy It, Right?" (http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/07/07/copyright-explained-i-may-copy-it-right/) This article is extensive and sobering.
According to my understanding, anything anyone creates and posts on the Internet is automatically copyrighted. Anything I write is MINE, anything you write is YOURS. I am responsible for what I post, and you are responsible for what you post. Anyone reading this blog should be aware that they may find material on this blog that is offensive or inaccurate. There are legal gray areas, and I may incur some liability for comments posted on this blog. Therefore I reserve the right to delete comments or keep them from appearing in the first place, without written notice or explanation.
Since you are responsible for any comments you post, and have the right to ask me to remove them, I must have some way of verifying that it is indeed YOU who are asking me to remove them. Therefore, I must collect at least basic contact information before allowing any of your comments. Also, since I share liability in cases of alleged or suspected illegal content in any comments you write, I will reluctantly share this contact information with any requesting authorities.
I am new to this, and both my own knowledge and the laws are constantly evolving, so I would expect that this legal notice will evolve as well. Laws are complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)