reason and squalor

arggggg, I said I would keep this up, yet here I am, making my first post in about 4 months. Darn. But I’m back! However, I have left the virtual social world that is Facebook. Ok, well technically I am still on it, I still have a profile, but I’m only keeping that because I need it for my work with the FAC. I’ve deleted all my friends (sorry! ), removed all of my pictures and videos, left all my groups, and so on. It took several days of deliberation before I finally decided to leave, and actually the difficulty that I had in making the decision ended up being one of the main reasons I chose to get rid of it. Basically nothing I’ve ever done there is of any consequence, it takes up a ridiculous amount of my time, and gives me the (I think) false belief that I’m “staying connected” with people. In reality, what happens is that I know what’s going on every single day with everyone, so I rarely feel the need to speak with anyone directly. It turns you from a friend in to some sort of mass voyeur. I’m finished with being joined at the hip with everyone I know, and yet not really communicating with any of them in any meaningful way. I’ve also had enough of the constant unnecessary changes to the site, which more often than not sneak in some sort of new “feature” that ends up just being a violation of privacy. So that’s that.

What else has happened since January…well, I finished my 4th year of undergrad, and am now going into my 5th year in September, to get one more credit to finish my major, and pick up a minor in the Book and Media Studies Program. I’ve been out of school for about a month now, and I’ve gotten a job working for the Internet Archive, a non-profit that is attempting to archive, on the internet, everything from digitized books to music recordings to movies, and even websites (that part is called the Wayback Machine, just type in a URL and you can see the website as it was at any date you choose). My job is to “scan” out of copyright books, edit them so they are fit for uploading, and then send them off to be put up on to the website. Some of the books I’ve scanned so far can be found here. Very low pressure environment, and I’m contributing to something that I believe is extremely important, so I’m pretty happy there.

And that’s about it for now.

So, today was the first day back at school. I had two classes today, and, amazingly, both were pretty great. For Mass Media I had read on ratemyprofessors that while the prof. I have for it is really good in his other classes he is really bad in this one. Noooo way. First of all, he is this 50 year old Italian guy (real Italian, as in born and raised in the country of Italy, not some Canadian who wears Kappa a lot and went to A. N. Myer ), accent and all. He’ll get excited about something and he sort of evolves into this super funny Italian rant. And, despite being a full year course that’s taught in half a year, the work is not that heavy. The only possible downside I can see to it is that the class has the Bullshit Brothers in it. That’s what I nicknamed these two guys who were in my Bibliography class last semester. They put up their hands (or often just shout out) to answer every question the prof asks, even the rhetorical ones. And if there’s ever a discussion in class that comes to its natural end, they ALWAYS insert some follow up comment to keep it going, taking away from time we could be learning from someone who actually knows what he’s talking about. They really need to settle down, in general. But I’m going to try not to let them bother me. For the final essay, we can opt to do a website! I’m not sure if he means like…a wordpress site or an actual coded full-on real site, but we’ll see. Pretty neat.

My other class today was Architecture since 1950. I have the same Prof as I had for my last architecture class, and she’s really great. But the class is HELLA hard. Holy crap, just in the first day there were like 20 theoretical terms that I had never heard before. There is no midterm but there is a cumulative final exam, a final essay, and two 12 page reading responses/critiques, two pages each week, for the entirety of the class. So essentially three essays. And the readings are pretty theoretical from what I can see. BUT…it is super awesome. I’ve never really been one for architecture, but I had to take my last one in order to keep from having to do non-Modern era art, and I really loved it. This one seems like it will be way more interesting, and deals with the current era so you’re learning about the world that you see every day. It’s really cool to be able to know even a little bit about what really went in to creating the architecture we have today. I just hope I can keep up with the work.

I’ve got one more class tomorrow that I don’t have too much hope for, but who knows. One thing is for sure, after today I know I made the absolute right decision to take a 5th year and therefore drop some of my classes from this semester. There is no way that I would have been able to do all of that work, plus my job and FAC stuff, and get grades anywhere near good enough to have a strong app for grad school. I don’t like the idea of putting my life off for yet another year, but it’s totally necessary.

hey there folks. So, just thought I would get this out of the way…I think that human-centered “global warming” is complete bullshit.

Yep.

Originally, when I first started hearing about all of this global warming stuff, I thought it sounded pretty right on the money. Mostly because I’d noticed how weird the weather seemed to be getting of late, and I thought that would explain it. I didn’t know there was any real skepticism about it at all (which was kind of silly, but I was a lot younger then and didn’t really know even the basics of how science works). My first introduction to global warming skepticism came when I was in grade 10 or 11, from my science teacher. She taught us about the theory of global warming (greenhouse gasses and all of that), but she added on to the end of it that she wasn’t convinced about the whole thing and that way more data was needed before she would be. Now that was a long time ago, and since it’s hard in general to be a skeptic about anything that the majority of people believe in, I let it go and sided with that very majority, until about a year or two ago. For whatever reason, I started to hear more and more about these skeptics of GW, of Al Gore’s movie, and the now infamous “hockey stick” graph. And it confused the heck out of me. It is VERY confusing, especially for someone with absolutely no science background, to understand what is going on in the science world, let alone be able to forge your own decisions about controversial matters like this. I also noticed that GW had become a highly politicized matter, and that’s when I got really worried. I knew then that there would be virtually no way of trusting what I hear from the media, and even from the scientists themselves. That lack of trust was cemented with the email leak of a few weeks ago, of course, although by that time I wasn’t surprised at all over what I read in them. But I have to say, more than anything, what cements my agnosticism about the whole GW issue (both human and non-human generated) is how many times I have heard the phrase “the scientists are in consensus”, or anything along those lines. Again and again, every single time I bring it up, ever so carefully, with people who I know wholeheartedly agree with the majority on this, I hear this phrase. It is to the point where I can read on Monday a paper or an article by or about a scientist or any perfectly sane person who challenges the theory, and by Friday I am struggling to remember that it exists after an onslaught of articles, papers, and heartfelt conversations with people  who just KNOW that it doesn’t, and that every single scientist with any credibility whatsoever, over the entire world, agrees on every major detail of the theory.

I don’t like to bring it up with people, and when the topic comes up, I rarely say anything, let alone speak my mind about what I really think. And this is ME I’m talking about here. I practically LIVE on debate, and I certainly enjoy pushing people’s buttons and letting them know if I disagree with them. I will easily slip into a conversation about abortion, government, money, or religion, and tell anyone who’s asked exactly what my opinion on the matter at hand is. I despise people who have no opinions on issues that effect their daily lives. That’s why I can’t stand it when people say they’re “agnostic” as far as religion goes. When people don’t have strong opinions about things, they aren’t thinking about them. And when they’re not forming opinions, they can’t fully partake in our democratic system. We can’t build on one another’s knowledge if we can’t all express how we have interpreted the available information.

20-30 years ago, everyone was convinced that the world was getting much, much colder. That if we didn’t do something about it, we would be heading into an ice age that would certainly kill us all. The difference there is that that theory didn’t have the intense, and yes, ideological backing that global warming has today. It certainly didn’t have the multi-billion dollar industry behind it. Look…I would never deny that climate change occurs. Of course it does…in a very real way, that’s what climate IS. And if a whole lot of people have a whole lot of very good reasons to think that the world’s temperature is rising at a dangerous rate, and we need to do something about it, then we should definitely engage with these people, try to repeat their experiments to confirm their data, and generally listen to them when they make their case. When the whole of the human race is on the line, there aren’t too many scenarios we shouldn’t do this for. But when average people and scientists alike attempt to stifle debate, or even say there shouldn’t be a debate at all, I have a serious problem. When people use the term “scientific consensus”, and call the people who dare question any facet of their belief “crazy”, “deniers”, or any other heavily loaded terms, you should watch out. Even if they are right, about everything, there is absolutely no reason to devolve into this kind of talk. If your theory is strong enough, stands up to unbiased, rigorous testing, and you are open about your methods and procedure, there is absolutely no reason for emotionally-charged rhetoric and politically charged attempted cover-ups of anything. At least this is what I have always thought about science, and why I put so much store in it. It’s what I tell religious people who challenge scientific theories like that of evolution. It is the very essence of why science is NOT religion, and vice versa. If we loose that, if we overly politicize science to such a degree that scientists will change or hide results, methods, or procedure, we’ve lost everything, and we will no longer be able to learn anything. So you can call me crazy all you want, claim that I’m the product of capitalist greed, or that I’ve been brainwashed by Big Oil or Stephen Harper (I hear he hates kittens, too), but it doesn’t matter – until people stop saying these things about the challenges to their theory, or the people who propose them, no matter how big or small, I’ll know I can’t trust a damn thing they say.

EDIT: after reading this post over, I realized that I may have said one thing and actually meant another. I don’t think I AM a global warming skeptic, at all. The point is that I just bloody well don’t know, and I’m not too sure that anyone else knows either. Just when I think I do, some other point is made to make me swing to the other side. I’m just generally confused. So, despite myself, I have to be a global warming agnostic. So, technically, I don’t think global warming is bullshit. I’m just really not sure of any of it. What I AM sure of, is that being forced into agnosticism because I can’t trust anybody is one of the most annoying things ever. The over politicization of this whole issue is what really angers me, and is the reason that I can’t put my weight behind global warming. And I think that the best illustration of this point is the whole “scientific consensus” thing. Every time anyone who is a global warming believer uses this term or suggests it in any way, I’m forced, BY THEM, not to believe a thing they say, due to the blatant over politicization of what they’re saying. It doesn’t help how heated up these same people get about it too, especially to anyone daring to question anything they claim. I’m not saying they’re wrong, I’m saying even if they’re right, it doesn’t mean a damn thing to me because I can’t trust them. And I don’t know what to do about that.

what are the haps, my friends?

Haven’t written in awhile, I’ve been busy with the melodramalama that is university. But now that that’s over, and school is out for a bit, I finally have some more time on my hands.

I’ve decided to take a 5th year, after basically being forced to take a 5th year Basically, after I realized that I wasn’t doing very well in one of my classes this semester, and that next semester I would be trying to cram 6 courses in all at once, I decided that the best course of action overall was just to take an extra year. Now I can take things a little slower, pick up a Book and Media Studies minor, and get some better grades in my final year. I can also work over the summer.

I’m working right now actually. I’m creating a digital library for my Professor/boss. I’ve already catalogued all of them, but now I’m going back to do all of the tagging. I just hit on my 100th reference to tag, and my first major difficulty. And it’s all due to our BFFL, post-modernism.

MAN. So…this woman writes her PhD dissertation, right. The first page begins with a Hannah Arendt quote, which I was somewhat pleasantly surprised to see. I couldn’t really make heads or tales of the quote, but I kept reading anyway. Next came what I guess is supposed to be her abstract. At this point, let me tell you how this normally goes. I open up the document, read the title, input any keywords that I can tell off the bat are going to be important. Then I read the abstract, and get almost all of the keywords from that. Then I’ll look at the table of contents to see the structure of the paper and pick up any important words that weren’t in the abstract. Finally, if that’s not enough, I’ll meander through the pages quickly without reading to see if any words are used constantly. And that’s about it, I’ve got all my keywords.

So, I go to look at this woman’s abstract. First, it’s not called an abstract, it’s an “Introduction…”. I’m not sure what the ellipsis is for, other than false teenagerific dramatic effect. It begins: “This dissertation…is about revealing the boundlessness of small deeds and sufferings that lie inside intergenerational stories and voices of a community…etc. And goes on like that for about a page. It ends, “In each of these searchings lies a beacon, a hope, a faith that such an engagement is necessary, even imperative for a modern self at a time when our moral horizons have become blurred. And here I must stop, for I am getting ahead of myself.” At this point I realized I had gotten through the entire “abstract” without finding a single keyword. In fact, I had very little idea what even the general subject of her work was. I’m not sure how she could “get ahead” of herself when she hadn’t, in fact, actually said a damn thing.

The next section was even better. It began: “An “Introduction” is a place of seduction.” She goes on to talk about what an introduction is, and use a whole bunch of words like “disrobe”, “lay bare”, “undress”, and she informs us that she will “try to be gentle” in informing us about what her ACTUAL point is. Jesus! In between the overtly sexualized prose  she waxes about her writing process, and what she personally feels about the idea of an introduction.

After 3 pages of this, I stopped reading, and looked once again at my still blank keyword box. This woman had just taken 800 words to say absolutely nothing about her subject, and way too much about her and her “feelings” towards papers in general. I got two things from this. One, the prose was so highly inappropriate I couldn’t concentrate on what she was saying even if she was saying anything, making me feel like that is really the point (distract the reader from the content with your diction and syntax, pretty old trick), and two, this woman is so self-centered I would be astonished if the entire 370 page dissertation said anything that wasn’t directly about her.

Now maybe you’re thinking, but e-dawg, you are currently writing about yourself, and you do it here all the time, isn’t that just as self-centered? And the answer is, yes. But this blog is not a PhD dissertation, the only thing between me and the highest academic distinction you can earn in North America. And that makes all the difference. Would you want to be taught by a professor who thought it completely appropriate and worthy to talk about herself for almost 400 pages? In addition, is she contributing with this work? My inability to take ANY information from the beginning of her work is tell-tale. She is not interested in efficiently communicating with others in her society. She wants you to struggle with it, to tease meaning out of it in a slow, “natural” process. That has some pretty good theory behind it, but practically speaking, it is a complete mess. Our society developed these efficient formulae because we found they were the best way of communicating. And when these forms of communication break down, others can no longer build on the knowledge of their predecessors. I know that many of these same people would say that this is exactly the point, that the notion of a progressive, linear track of knowledge is outdated. And it sounds fancy and new when you read it in some German or French guys Theory paper. But what I’m doing is building a library, which is a repository of information, organized in the most efficient manner possible to make finding crap as easy as it can be. And this kind of theory makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to perform this task.   So, unless you truly believe that we should stop building on each other’s knowledge, this general “post-modern” way of writing such important documents really has to go. It will certainly get you points for rhetoric, but if anyone ever wants to gain knowledge, your deconstructed paper is not going to be the place they’ll go. Academics need to stop wasting their time applying weak, decades old theory, and start making some sense again.

sooo, I’ve really nothing to say, so I decided I’ll post my recent work. It’s a bibliographic description of the eleventh edition of Basil Kennett’s Romae Antiquae Notitia (or, The Antiquities of Rome). It’s a hand-press period book, from 1746. Hand-press was what they used before they created machine-press books (monotype and linotype), used from the late 1600’s I believe until about 1830. The description goes along with a short essay, but I won’t post that because its not done and it will suck.

The collation formula and pagination took me the most time to do. I’m lucky that my book had enough editions to be able to work out most of the kinks in the printing, so there aren’t many errors to account for. The Contents portion looks way more complicated than it was. So does the quasi-facsimile of the title page, which was pretty much the only easy part. Information on binding isn’t included, because hand-press period books were not purchased with bindings on them, and mine was rebound in the 50’s anyway. I dunno. I think it looks all cool and mathy.

So, without further ado:

Romae Antiquae Notitia                                                   1746

[in black and red, within a double line frame, 167 × 98 mm.]

Romæ Antiquæ Notitia:|OR, THE|ANTIQUITIES|OF|ROME.|In TWO PARTS.|I. A Short HISTORY of the Riſe, Progreſs, and|Decay of the COMMONWEALTH.|II. A Deſcription of the CITY: An Account of|the Religion, Civil Government, andArt of War; with the|Remarkable Cuſstoms and Ceremonies, Publick and Private.|With Copper CUTTS of the Principal Buildings, &c.|To which are prefix’d Two ESSAYS; concerning the|Roman LEARNING, and the RomanEDUCATION.|[rule 89 mm.]|By BASIL KENNETT, of C. C. C. Oxon.|[rule 89 mm.]|—– Nec defiant unquam|Tecum Graia loqui, tecum Romana vetuſtas.|Claudian.|[rule 88 mm.]|The ELEVENTH EDITION Correƈted and Improved.|[rule 89 mm.]|LONDON:|Printed for W.INNYS, A. WARD, J. and P. KNAPTON,|S. BIRT, D. BROWNE, T. LONGMAN and T. SHEWELL,|J. HODGES, E. WICKSTEED, C. BATHURST, J. and R.|TONSON, J. HUTTON, and M. COOPER.|MDCCXLVI

Collation: Demy 8^o : a-c⁸ A1-2B⁸ 2C1² [$4 signed (—a1, a2)]

Pagination: 226 leaves, pp. [18], i ii-xxx, 1 2-28 29 30-60 61 62-96 97 98-375, [27]; plates [10]; insets [1]; maps [1]

Technical notes: catchwords on all pages [— G8^a, I8^b (forcing] cing),

Q5^a (to] [hole]), S2^a]

Gutter, pp.126-127 = 26 mm. Pagination set in outer margin of headline. Running chapter titles split across headers. Rule on footer = 88mm. Small rule ornaments on beginning and ending of all sections  (phoenix, squirrel, fruit, flower, or Romulus and Remus, 5 × 85 mm.).

Typography: 145 × 90mm. (E2); roman 70; 40 lines; ornaments on each chapter header including dedication (25 × 85 mm.)

Paper: vertical chain 25 mm.; unwatermarked; 19.0 × 12.75 uncut.

Plates:

[Copperplate engravings; Appear on recto unless otherwise specified; All engravings by Michael Van der Gucht; signed ‘V dr Gucht sculp’]

1. Opp. pp. 21; ROMA ANTIQUA; map of ancient Rome; 165 × 200 mm.; Throwout leaf; Marked ‘pag. 20’ upper right corner.
2. Opp. pp. 25; series of 49 Roman coins depicting various heads of state; 165 × 200 mm.; Throwout leaf; Marked ‘pag. 24’ upper right corner.
3. Opp. pp. 39; CAPITOLIUM|Templ PANTHEON Vulgo Rotunda; 169 × 100 mm.; Marked ‘p 39’ upper right corner.
4. Opp. pp. 43; T_HEATRUM C_ORNELII B_{ALBI GADITANI}|A_MPHITHEATRUM C_LAUDII; 165 × 100 mm.; Marked ‘p. 43’ upper right corner.
5. Opp. pp. 47; C_{IRCI ET QUINQUE} L_UDICRORUM C_IRCENSIUM|Deformatic ex Onuphiro Panvinio. |CIRCUS; 133 × 185 mm.; Throwout leaf; Marked ‘Fol. 46.’ upper right corner.
6. Opp. pp. 47; NAVMACHIAE ID EST NAVALIS PUGNAE.|Descripto ex Onuphr. Panvinio.; 140 × 190 mm.; Throwout leaf; Marked ‘pag. 46’ upper right corner.
7. Opp.  pp. 85; A_NTIQUORUM|S_{ACRIFICIANDIRITUS}|ex|Onuphiro Panvinio; pictoral description of sacrificial rituals of the Romans; 135 × 190 mm.; Throwout leaf; Marked ‘Fol. 84.’ upper right corner.
8. Opp. pp. 208 ; Two pictures separated by rule: a) Signorum Militar genera; picture of two men with military shield and flags; b) Duo Milites cum|Utenſilibus; five military men, three of which are labelled to describe their purpose: Sagitarius, Funditor, Legionarius; 165 × 100 mm.; Incorrectly marked ‘p. 207.’ upper right corner.
9. Opp. pp. 211; verso; I_CONISMUS A_CIEI V_ULGATÆ;  Roman military camp division and setup; 160 × 95 mm.; Marked ‘pag. 210’ lower right corner.
10. Between pp.221; verso; six Roman crowns; 160 × 79 mm.; Leaf 12 mm. shorter on fore-edge. Marked ‘pag. 220.’ upper right corner.
11. Opp. pp. 307; plate spans two leaves, first one verso, second one recto; eight statues; 165 × 175 mm.; Marked ‘p. 306.’ upper right corner of second leaf.
12. Between pp. 337; verso; two types of funerals in Rome; 168 × 100 mm.; Leaf 6 mm. shorter on tail. Marked ‘p. 336.’ upper right corner.

Frontispiece: portrait 1^st Duke of Gloucester (?) in oval frame, signed bottom left ‘M V dr Gucht sculp’; cross-hatched rule with caption in latin below: Ostendunt terries quem tantium ƒata Supremis|Hunc ſaltem accumulem denis, et fun gar inani|Munere.____ [on recto side there is a blue stamp: ‘A_NDREW L_IGHTBODY’S|LENDING LIBRARY,|BELWOOD, ONT.|N_O. .......................’].

Contents: a1^a blank, a1^b frontispiece, a2^a title, a2^b blank [hand writing in black ink: ‘765/1/4/1890’], a3^a-a4^b: ‘The Epiſtle Dedicatory.’, a5^a – a6^b preface, a7^a -  b1^b contents, b2^a – b8^b: ^‘ESSAY I.|Of the R_OMAN Learning.’, c1^a – c8^b: ‘ESSAY II.|Of the R_OMAN Education.’, A1^a – B6^b: ‘The|Antiquities of ROME.|[rule]| PART I. BOOK I.|[rule]|The Original, Growth, and Decay of the|R_OMAN Commonwealth.’, B7^a – D6^b: ‘The|Antiquities of ROME.|[rule]|PART II. BOOK I.|[rule]|Of the C_ITY.’, D7^a – F8^b: ‘PART II. BOOK II.|[rule]|Of the R_ELIGION of the Romans.’, G1^a – M3^b: ‘PART II. BOOK III.|[rule]|Of the Civil Government of the R_OMANS.’, M4^a – Q3^b: ‘PART II. BOOK IV.|[rule]|The R_OMAN Art of WAR.’, Q4^a – 2A4^a: ‘ PART II. BOOK V.|[rule]|Miſcellany Cuſtoms of the R_OMANS.’, 2A4^b blank, 2A5^a – 2B5^b index, 2B6^a – 2C1^b: ‘SCRIPTORES|Qui in duodecim Tomis Theſauri Antiquitatum|Romanarum a Magno G_RÆVIO congeſti inve-|niuntur.’ [bibliography].

The end!