I was looking through old files on my computer and came across some writing assignments from a creative writing class in college. This was one of three places I had to describe in an assignment. It really exists. I think I saw the horrible movie "Dante's Peak" there. Starring Pierce Brosnan.
Rerun movie theater, Elephant & Castle, London.
The floor is dirty and crunched popcorn is scattered everywhere as if the entire lobby were a giant popcorn machine and no one bothered to clean up after most of it had been sold. The two ticket booths are enclosed in thick Plexiglas that is scratched and almost opaque. The microphone for the attendant doesn’t work so you have to shout through the glass. On the weekdays, four big bouncers are usually there, about one for every moviegoer. The second theater (of two) has no lighting at all except for the red exit signs above the back doors. The people in the back are usually smoking marijuana, so sit up front or you’ll end up with a buzz at the end of the movie. The screen is small. The seats are covered in green plastic that crinkles every time you shift position. After the movie starts, the theater is pitch black. It’s very difficult to go to the bathroom and find your way back. After a while you give up looking for your friends and sit anywhere (but the back). No one is really watching the movie: they’re either talking or smoking or making out. That’s okay because the movie isn’t any good. You can get to the theater from the Tube Station. Take either the Black or Brown Line.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Thoughts after a Lecture by Terry Penner
What I think it takes to be a good scholar in philosophy today.
(1) Mastery of original languages (at least Greek, Latin, German, and French).
(2) Knowledge of logic (formal, informal, set theoretic, metalogic, modal, etc.).
(3) Knowledge of the history of philosophy (both breadth and depth).
(4) Knowledge of the state and history of the discipline.
(5) Excellent study habits and writing skills.
NB: These are not criteria of what it takes to be a good philosopher nor even a good teacher of philosophy.
(1) Mastery of original languages (at least Greek, Latin, German, and French).
(2) Knowledge of logic (formal, informal, set theoretic, metalogic, modal, etc.).
(3) Knowledge of the history of philosophy (both breadth and depth).
(4) Knowledge of the state and history of the discipline.
(5) Excellent study habits and writing skills.
NB: These are not criteria of what it takes to be a good philosopher nor even a good teacher of philosophy.
Saturday, May 08, 2004
Robert Pinsky
Last night I went with some friends to listen to Robert Pinsky, one of the most skillful poets I have ever read, read some of his poetry. Listening to him read is a wonderful experience. Although I disagreed with some of his statements about language and "culture," he leaves almost every other contemporary poet in the dust. His knowledge of like and unlike sounds is vast, and his skill in bringing that knowledge to bear on words is virtuosic. Watching him read is like watching a prizefighter box: each movement is the seamless product of erudition and long practice.
He also recited from memory Ben Jonson's poem "His Excuse for Loving":
Let it not your wonder move,
Less your laughter, that I love.
Though I now write fifty years,
I have had, and have my Peeres;
Poets, though divine are men:
Some have loved as old again.
And it is not always face,
Clothes, or Fortune gives the grace;
Or the feature, or the youth:
But the Language, and the Truth,
With the Ardor, and the Passion,
Gives the Lover weight, and fashion.
If you then will read the Storie,
First, prepare you to be sorry
That you never knew till now,
Either whom to love, or how:
But be glad, as soon with me,
When you know, that this is she,
Of whose Beautie it was sung,
She shall make the old man young,
Keepe the middle age at stay,
And let nothing high decay,
Till she be the reason why,
All the world for love may die.
Pinsky read some poems from a collection he's working on now. He also took requests. He is 63 years old and looks amazing. After the reading, which lasted less than an hour (Pinsky is always careful to not drone on too long), he sat at a table and signed autographs with the patience and demeanor of a saint. During the question and answer session, a woman raised her hand to say that she didn't have a question but that this was the first poetry reading she had been to and that she was enjoying it and having a good time. She was genuine, and Pinsky seemed honestly thankful for her comment.
After the reading, back to the Bourgeois Apartment for good times with Carlos, Ally, Schubert, Heather, and the Bourgeois Wife, who really knows how to hostess a party: "mistress of herself though china fall."
He also recited from memory Ben Jonson's poem "His Excuse for Loving":
Let it not your wonder move,
Less your laughter, that I love.
Though I now write fifty years,
I have had, and have my Peeres;
Poets, though divine are men:
Some have loved as old again.
And it is not always face,
Clothes, or Fortune gives the grace;
Or the feature, or the youth:
But the Language, and the Truth,
With the Ardor, and the Passion,
Gives the Lover weight, and fashion.
If you then will read the Storie,
First, prepare you to be sorry
That you never knew till now,
Either whom to love, or how:
But be glad, as soon with me,
When you know, that this is she,
Of whose Beautie it was sung,
She shall make the old man young,
Keepe the middle age at stay,
And let nothing high decay,
Till she be the reason why,
All the world for love may die.
Pinsky read some poems from a collection he's working on now. He also took requests. He is 63 years old and looks amazing. After the reading, which lasted less than an hour (Pinsky is always careful to not drone on too long), he sat at a table and signed autographs with the patience and demeanor of a saint. During the question and answer session, a woman raised her hand to say that she didn't have a question but that this was the first poetry reading she had been to and that she was enjoying it and having a good time. She was genuine, and Pinsky seemed honestly thankful for her comment.
After the reading, back to the Bourgeois Apartment for good times with Carlos, Ally, Schubert, Heather, and the Bourgeois Wife, who really knows how to hostess a party: "mistress of herself though china fall."
Monday, March 01, 2004
Tomorrow is the big voting day (see "Electioneering" below). I am eagerly awaiting the chance to play my role in the democracy.
Random question: In the Iliad, why is the consummation of the early battle between Paris and Menelaus denied by Aphrodite, and is the end of this fight a cop-out on Homer's part? It would seem as if Aphrodite's intervention is completely unwarranted and that cynically one could accuse Homer of bringing her in only so that he can continue his story for another twenty-one books. Given that fact that Homer was a great genius, I do not think this is the proper way to read him here, but for the moment I am caught up on this issue.
Has anyone read Maritain's book Prayer and Intelligence? Comments?
Also, it seems that the question of homosexuality has become the test of rationalism at my university (and, from what I can tell, elsewhere). Do you think homosexuality is acceptable? If not, you are irrational and (consequently) bigoted. Now whatever you may think about homosexuality, is it really that obvious that to oppose it is to be irrational? I would like to know why.
I have found this article by Hadley Arkes from 1996 to be informative on the judicial aspect of this issue. In fact, the whole symposium of which this article is a part is quite interesting and well worth a few evenings spent reading it over in detail.
Too many links in this entry; I know. More coherent thoughts in a few weeks after papers are done. In the meantime, pardon the rambling.
Random question: In the Iliad, why is the consummation of the early battle between Paris and Menelaus denied by Aphrodite, and is the end of this fight a cop-out on Homer's part? It would seem as if Aphrodite's intervention is completely unwarranted and that cynically one could accuse Homer of bringing her in only so that he can continue his story for another twenty-one books. Given that fact that Homer was a great genius, I do not think this is the proper way to read him here, but for the moment I am caught up on this issue.
Has anyone read Maritain's book Prayer and Intelligence? Comments?
Also, it seems that the question of homosexuality has become the test of rationalism at my university (and, from what I can tell, elsewhere). Do you think homosexuality is acceptable? If not, you are irrational and (consequently) bigoted. Now whatever you may think about homosexuality, is it really that obvious that to oppose it is to be irrational? I would like to know why.
I have found this article by Hadley Arkes from 1996 to be informative on the judicial aspect of this issue. In fact, the whole symposium of which this article is a part is quite interesting and well worth a few evenings spent reading it over in detail.
Too many links in this entry; I know. More coherent thoughts in a few weeks after papers are done. In the meantime, pardon the rambling.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Electioneering
So, I think that I will vote "no" on all four propositions on the California ballot. As for the first two propositions (on education), I think the less money the state has to spend on education the better. Perhaps I'm being cynical, but if billions of dollars cannot produce at least semi-educated students, the solution does not seem to be to give them (whoever "them" is) more money.
As for the next two, you ask me, "How can you vote 'no' on a proposal called the 'Balanced Budget Amendment'?" I respond: It will further degrade the spirit of republicanism (small r republicanism) in the state. The fact that state legislators have to be coerced (i.e., threatened with pay loss) into passing a balanced budget indicates that the state of politics in general is not one based on love of equality and love of homeland, the two virtues needed to sustain a republic. Passing this proposition to amend the state constitution is an admission that the quality of these virtues is strained. I hold out hope that the spirit of republicanism can be revived by an improvement in the manners and mores of California. It certainly will not be revived by a law, the effects of which, if passed, will do irreparable harm to the spirit of republicanism.
Perhaps I am wrong about these things, and I would honestly like to know. Can there be anything worse than a citizen who has a mistaken understanding of political things? Perhaps a student of philosophy who has studied too much political philosophy and not enough political science.
Also, what irks me is Democrats voting for Kerry because he is the only one who can defeat Bush. I'm not a stellar student of history, but something tells me that there's got to be bad precedent for voting for someone just because you don't like the other guy.
Also, what irks me is the constant assumption that the "religious right" is the only sector of society supportive of Bush. Is this true? If so, then how come the religious right is presented as a "minority opinion" in America? Doesn't it take more than a minority to vote a president into office and support his policies? Well, honestly, probably not, and that's what worried James Madison so much in Federalist 10. I've always wondered how Madison could support the principles of republicanism and still maintain that a faction could be a majority, especially since he never clearly states who decides what the "permanent and aggregate interests of the community" are.
Maybe I've been reading too much Chomsky, not that I agree with him, but I think he represents one of the few genuine critical alternatives to the Federalists.
As for the next two, you ask me, "How can you vote 'no' on a proposal called the 'Balanced Budget Amendment'?" I respond: It will further degrade the spirit of republicanism (small r republicanism) in the state. The fact that state legislators have to be coerced (i.e., threatened with pay loss) into passing a balanced budget indicates that the state of politics in general is not one based on love of equality and love of homeland, the two virtues needed to sustain a republic. Passing this proposition to amend the state constitution is an admission that the quality of these virtues is strained. I hold out hope that the spirit of republicanism can be revived by an improvement in the manners and mores of California. It certainly will not be revived by a law, the effects of which, if passed, will do irreparable harm to the spirit of republicanism.
Perhaps I am wrong about these things, and I would honestly like to know. Can there be anything worse than a citizen who has a mistaken understanding of political things? Perhaps a student of philosophy who has studied too much political philosophy and not enough political science.
Also, what irks me is Democrats voting for Kerry because he is the only one who can defeat Bush. I'm not a stellar student of history, but something tells me that there's got to be bad precedent for voting for someone just because you don't like the other guy.
Also, what irks me is the constant assumption that the "religious right" is the only sector of society supportive of Bush. Is this true? If so, then how come the religious right is presented as a "minority opinion" in America? Doesn't it take more than a minority to vote a president into office and support his policies? Well, honestly, probably not, and that's what worried James Madison so much in Federalist 10. I've always wondered how Madison could support the principles of republicanism and still maintain that a faction could be a majority, especially since he never clearly states who decides what the "permanent and aggregate interests of the community" are.
Maybe I've been reading too much Chomsky, not that I agree with him, but I think he represents one of the few genuine critical alternatives to the Federalists.
Sunday, February 01, 2004
Ugh
Fewer things are worse than being sick all night and day. I suppose if one were sick on the day one was invited to the Super Bowl party of the year, then that might be worse. Oh, wait. That's me. At least my wife is sick with me.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Random thought: If you have a few extra dollars and would like to purchase some good rock and roll music, please buy it from Jaycob Van Auken (click this one for the web site, or skip the web site and get straight to the music buying). Or I guess you could just spend that money supporting Beethoven, again. Like that guy needs any more money.
Forgotten New Year's Resolution
10. Read Robert Musil's The Man Without Qualities (vol. 1 and vol. 2) from start to finish. I do not know how many times I have started that book, but it keeps kicking my butt. It's huge. It is so long and convoluted that I get about 200 pages into it (say, chapter 46, "Ideals and morality are the best means for filling that big hole called the soul," or chapter 47, "What all others are separately, Arnheim is rolled into one") and stop reading for a while (only 2,200 more pages to go), but then if I try to pick up where I left off I cannot remember what is going in the story. So I go back to the beginning, read about 200 pages, and stop. (NB (to self): Musil did not finish the book, and that makes it even more frustrating since I know that when I get to the end--and I will get to the end--it will not really be an end.) You ask, "Why does he not sell the book and give it up?" and I reply, "I have sold the books once, and then I bought them back." In the end, it cannot be explained at all.
Sunday, January 18, 2004
It feels good to be back in class. I do enjoy the "thrill" of reading and studying; in particular I enjoy reading and studying the great works of western civilization. This quarter my energies are primarily directed toward Hobbes and Kant, two names that don't particularly inspire the masses, I know, but all that's needed to rectify that is an ardent PR campaign.
Yesterday, did something had not done in a while: hung out with a bunch of guys without any women around. Sheldon Vanauken noted two things about male friendship that represent the spirit of our age. (1) Egalitarianism has so penetrated our society that men cannot be away from the sound of a woman's voice anywhere. (2) The acceptance of homosexuality has jaded people's opinion about the possibility of true and deep male friendship. My wife keeps pestering me to start a gentleman's club similar to the ones of aristocratic England. Of course, the phrase "gentleman's club" now denotes a place where no true gentleman would be found dead. It now means something very ungentlemanly. Similarly, Dorothy Sayers describes Christianity as a religion for adults, meaning by this it is a religion suitable to intellectually mature, rationally sophisticated, and deliberately logical reflection. Here we see the same twisting of words: "adult" now means something that stands in opposition to its former meaning. Consider the surprise of many if upon entering into an "adult bookstore" they were confronted with logic textbooks and intellectually challenging literary works in philosophy and theology. Now "adult" implies "sexual," but that implication is obviously spurious: even the juvenile may be "sexual" whereas today's "adult" may not be rational. By the by, I've always found the description "adult situations" on a movie to be somewhat funny. Adult situations? You mean like balancing the checkbook, going to work, taking care of the children?
But anyway, the plan for a true gentleman's club is on. Sorry, no ladies (or any other sort of women) allowed.
Yesterday, did something had not done in a while: hung out with a bunch of guys without any women around. Sheldon Vanauken noted two things about male friendship that represent the spirit of our age. (1) Egalitarianism has so penetrated our society that men cannot be away from the sound of a woman's voice anywhere. (2) The acceptance of homosexuality has jaded people's opinion about the possibility of true and deep male friendship. My wife keeps pestering me to start a gentleman's club similar to the ones of aristocratic England. Of course, the phrase "gentleman's club" now denotes a place where no true gentleman would be found dead. It now means something very ungentlemanly. Similarly, Dorothy Sayers describes Christianity as a religion for adults, meaning by this it is a religion suitable to intellectually mature, rationally sophisticated, and deliberately logical reflection. Here we see the same twisting of words: "adult" now means something that stands in opposition to its former meaning. Consider the surprise of many if upon entering into an "adult bookstore" they were confronted with logic textbooks and intellectually challenging literary works in philosophy and theology. Now "adult" implies "sexual," but that implication is obviously spurious: even the juvenile may be "sexual" whereas today's "adult" may not be rational. By the by, I've always found the description "adult situations" on a movie to be somewhat funny. Adult situations? You mean like balancing the checkbook, going to work, taking care of the children?
But anyway, the plan for a true gentleman's club is on. Sorry, no ladies (or any other sort of women) allowed.
Saturday, January 03, 2004
Rafael Ferber
For some reason, every time I try to fill in a form on the web, the name Rafael Ferber appears as an "auto complete" option in my web browser. I don't recall ever searching for Mr. Ferber, and I'm afraid to do so now. What kind of business is he in? Is it reputable? The frustrating thing is that I cannot figure out how to remove Raffy from the list of auto complete options. So he keeps dropping down. In fact, he's the only one dropping down, so when his name appeared as an automatic option for the subject of this entry, I decided to give him his due.
Tomorrow after church, I'm going to the wedding of Amanda Cunagin (soon-to-be Hamilton) and Andrew Hamilton (still-to-be Hamilton). They are both artsy people, and my expectations are high for an artsy wedding. I understand the rationale for short weddings, but it seems a little cheap when they're only 15-20 minutes long. I mean, you might as well hit up the justice of the peace. I also think weddings could be billed as potlucks: last name A-H bring salad, I-N bring side dish, O-T, brings drinks, U-Z bring deserts, main dish provided.
I am feeling pretty manly lately. While at my parent's house in Michigan for Christmas, my dad and I built a coffee table for our (my wife's and mine) apartment in Irvine. We built it from some planks he had made from a walnut tree that fell down near his church. We did use power tools, but contra Tim Allen that did not create my feeling of manliness. I trace the source of my machismo to using old hand tools that were passed down from my grandfather to my father. There is nothing like the feel of using a sharp hand planer. For an Impressionist rendition of my feeling, see Caillebotte's painting of floor scrapers.
Tomorrow after church, I'm going to the wedding of Amanda Cunagin (soon-to-be Hamilton) and Andrew Hamilton (still-to-be Hamilton). They are both artsy people, and my expectations are high for an artsy wedding. I understand the rationale for short weddings, but it seems a little cheap when they're only 15-20 minutes long. I mean, you might as well hit up the justice of the peace. I also think weddings could be billed as potlucks: last name A-H bring salad, I-N bring side dish, O-T, brings drinks, U-Z bring deserts, main dish provided.
I am feeling pretty manly lately. While at my parent's house in Michigan for Christmas, my dad and I built a coffee table for our (my wife's and mine) apartment in Irvine. We built it from some planks he had made from a walnut tree that fell down near his church. We did use power tools, but contra Tim Allen that did not create my feeling of manliness. I trace the source of my machismo to using old hand tools that were passed down from my grandfather to my father. There is nothing like the feel of using a sharp hand planer. For an Impressionist rendition of my feeling, see Caillebotte's painting of floor scrapers.
Thursday, January 01, 2004
New Year's Resolutions
1. Don't let the dishes pile up in the sink.
2. Complete reading for classes ahead of time.
3. Write first drafts of all my major papers and solicit criticism on them.
4. Study Greek one hour a day.
5. Study Latin one hour a day.
6. Stock music collection with classical music again.
7. Write a letter to Jaroslav Pelikan asking him for advice on how to succeed as a scholar.
8. Acquire good art for apartment walls.
9. Find new prime number.
2. Complete reading for classes ahead of time.
3. Write first drafts of all my major papers and solicit criticism on them.
4. Study Greek one hour a day.
5. Study Latin one hour a day.
6. Stock music collection with classical music again.
7. Write a letter to Jaroslav Pelikan asking him for advice on how to succeed as a scholar.
8. Acquire good art for apartment walls.
9. Find new prime number.
Friday, September 12, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)