Thursday, November 7, 2024

Heinrich von Kleist

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) is the most celebrated German writer of the Classical period, and some, perhaps most, would say he is the most eminent German writer of any period so far, the author of Faust, Werther, West-Oestlcher Divan and many other distinguished plays, novels and poems. But also a botanist, a geologist -- he published some work on optics notable today mostly for some glaring errors, perhaps to demonstrate that no-one is completely perfect, not even Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. But also the longtime minister of culture of the the German city-state of Weimar. When Napoleon passed through that part of Germany, he and Goethe had a good long chat, because of course. But also too many other things to list them all here. When Germany founded its official international cultural center in 1951, they named it the Goethe-Institut, because of course they did. 

The second-most eminent German writer of the Classical era is Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805), playwright, poet, historian, philosopher, friend of Goethe, perhaps best-known for his "Ode to Joy," which Beethoven put to music in his 9th Symphony.

And then there's the third-most celebrated German writer of the Classical era, one you may not have heard of if you're not from Germany and have taken no courses in German literature: the spooky one, Heinrich von Kleist (1777-1811). 

 

"Spooky" feels like a very inadequate adjective to describe Kleist's works. The German word "unheimlich" is much better. I don't think there is a single English word which translates unheimlich adequately. Unheimlich means frightening, eerie, ominous, unsettling -- come to think of it, when English-speaking people mis-translate the German noun "Angst" -- and they do, utterly, every time -- they tend to come up with something close to that which is described by the German adjective "unheimlich."

Kleist was born into a Prussian military family, in Frankfurt on the Oder, about an hour's drive from downtown Berlin today according to Google Maps, not to be confused with the much bigger and more well-known Frankfurt on the Main in western Germany, Germany's financial center and home of its highest skyscrapers, and also where Goethe was born. Kleist wrote plays, fiction and poems, and other things, including a fascinating essay on the marionette-theater. 

One of his plays, Der zerbrochene Krug, is among the best loved German comedies. The rest are quite dark, and one, Der Herrmannschlacht, which tells the story of the crushing defeat of several Roman legions by a coalition of Germanic tribes in the Battle of the Teutoburg forest in 9 AD, is seldom performed, because it is considered, quite rightly, to be really about Kleist's hatred for Napoleon's army, for France in general and for non-German things in general. More about that later. 

If you saw a photo from a production of Kleist's Prinz von Hombuurg, you might well assume that what you were seeing was from a weird modern or post-modern staging of the play. But actually, scenes from the play as Kleist wrote it, and as it was performed in his lifetime, look like that, because very weird things happen in the play. Unheimlich. 

And then there are Kleist's stories. The longest and scariest of them, Michael Kohlhaas, has given a figure of speech to modern German: "to play Kohlhaas" means to be extraordinarily stubborn. 

The story was inspired by a report of a 16th-century episode in which a man from the merchant class reacted violently to mistreatment by a nobleman. In Kleist's re-telling of the story, Kohlhaas is a horse-dealer whose horses and servant are mistreated by a drunken lout of a junker. Kohlhaas demands restitution, and doesn't get it, because, you may not be shocked to learn, in 16th-century Prussia, noblemen could sometimes get away with mistreating commoners. But turns out Koohlhaas was the wrong commoner to mess with: long story short, he and his friends declare war on the Junker after his legal efforts fail, burn down the countryside, and although Kohlhaas is eventually caught and executed, he also manages to prove that he was right. 

This story is unheimlich right from the start. From the opening scene, where, now that the drunken lout of a junker has succeed his father, there is a toll charged to cross a bridge which Kohlhaas used for many years to bring his horses to market with no toll, there is the sense that what is portrayed is this fiction is both eerily real and and quite unpleasant -- that Kleist is thrusting under our noses the wrong things about the world from which we ordinarily choose to look away. 

The world is not as it should be. And Kleist describes this with devastating skill.

It also ought not to be that a poet as talented as Kleist was infected with such common and ugly nationalism, but his play Der Herrmannschlacht, with its heroic ancient Germanic tribes standing in for the Germans of Kleist's own time and the ancient Romans standing in for France, leaves little doubt about that, and of you still doubt it, his political writings and letters from the time of Napoleon's occupation clear it up. You see, Kleist was very disturbed by the way in which French soldiers and German women were behaving with one another. 

Not with the behavior generally of occupying soldiers of any nation, and of the predicaments of women of the nations they occupied. Not with horrors of war generally. Those could have been topics of reasonable discussion. But, no, Kleist was very specifically and exclusively disturbed about French soldiers and what they were doing with German women. There's no putting a positive spin on it.

And the final, very disturbing  fact about Kleist is his death; a young, terminally-ill woman, Henriette Vogel, convinced him to kill her and then himself. In 1811, Kleist, 34 years old, his success and reputation growing rapidly, shot her dead, and then fired a bullet through his own brain. 

The world is not as it should be.

Monday, October 14, 2024

Colorful Little Icons on Golf Balls

I've been in 46 of these 50 United States -- all but Hawaii, Washington, Idaho and Maine. And so I've seen a lot of messed-up stuff. 

But I honestly do not know whether I've seen a city with more mobile homes per capita than Anchorage, Alaska. Lots and lots of huge, luxurious houses, and lots and lots of huge trailer parks. I haven't seen Anchorage in 16 years, so it might look completely different now, who knows. Not me, is who. 

Anyway. In the middle of the night about 20 years ago, I was walking through a large empty lot in Anchorage. Why was I walking through a large empty lot in Anchorage in the middle of  the night? Well, to tell you the truth, i was doing my job. It was a messed-up job. I don't want to talk about that job right now. Maybe after the election. Please vote the straight Democratic ticket. Thank you.

So, I was waking through this big empty lot in the middle of the night, but not in the dark, because it was around the summer solstice, the longest day of the year, and in that time of the year in Anchorage the sun does set, but it doesn't stay down for very long and the sky doesn't get completely dark. And I was thinking to myself, Well, I wonder if this is where they're going to put the next big trailer park. And that was when I found a golf ball. 

It's a Wilson TC2 Tour golf ball -- I still have it, I'm looking at it right now -- standard white golf ball, except that on one -- what do you call a corner of a sphere? -- except that in the middle of one ordinarily empty white space, it has a colorful little icon bearing the name of a local golf course, on a little outdoors-y picture suggestive of golf. 

What was it doing there? Well, just now, 20 years later, it has occurred to me that they could have been planning to put up a golf course there, and not a trailer park. According to Google, an 18-hole golf course typically covers 120-200 acres, and can be as small as 30 acres if all of the holes are par 3. That lot was at least 30 acres. Trust me. I grew up in rural northern Indiana, in relatively flat land sectioned into 1-mile, 640-acre squares. I'm autistic. I can calculate acreage.

So for 20 years I've been picturing various ways the golf ball could have gotten there. Maybe there was a golf course just over a stand of trees next to the lot, and maybe somebody hit a bad slice. Or maybe someone got mad and deliberately hit a ball out of the course. Google says that the all-time longest drive is over 550 yards and that lots of players can hit a ball over 300 yards. Making it actually rather easily explainable how golf balls can get all sorts of places. I have no idea where that empty lot was. For all I know it could have been right next to a golf course.

Or maybe, I've been thinking to myself over the decades, some big shot was flying over Anchorage in a helicopter, and tried to hit a mobile home resident with a thrown ball. Or maybe he just accidentally dropped a ball out of the helicopter.

But maybe, I'm thinking to myself now, it got there because they were about to put a golf course there.  

Years later, I had moved to a Midwestern city, and I found a golf ball on or near the sidewalk within a few blocks of my home. It's a Nike Mojo 4 Star. And it too has a colorful little icon in a place the manufacturer had left blank, in this case the icon of a local of a utility workers' union. 

And in this case the nearest golf course is more than a mile away, so this little ball has more splainin to do than the first one.

But wait -- let me search for driving ranges on Google Maps... Aha! More easily splainable now! But wait some more... Seems most or all of these driving ranges are indoor. I don't know anything about golf, almost.

These 2 balls, until several days ago, had been about the extent of my 21st-century experience of golf. Are Wilson TC2's and Nike Mojo 4-Star's good golf balls? I don't even know enough about golf for the Google results about these golf balls to tell me whether they're good or bad or expensive or cheap. I have no frame of reference. I have learned, just now, that Nike stopped making golf balls years ago.

Since these were the only 2 golf balls I had seen up close in the 21st century, I assumed that this meant that these days, golf balls all have fascinating colorful little icons put onto them by someone other than the manufacturer. Also, I had done searches for used golf balls on Amazon and seen still more fascinating colorful little icons. 

And so -- the other day I went into the local used -sporting-goods store and bought a plastic box of a dozen used golf balls. 

Why? you ask. Do you always know know why you do everything you do? If so, you and I are very, very different. But yeah, it was partly because I was looking forward to a fascinating little rainbow of those colorful icons. 

I shoulda dug through the bin of individual balls next to the packaged ones. On most of the 12 balls I got, 11 Titleist Pro V1 and Titleist V1X, the big empty white space is left empty. A couple of them have what looks like magic marker stripes in one quadrant -- maybe because "Oh look we both brought Titlesists marked 4" ? -- and 2 of them have decidedly drab, uncolorful little corporate logos, so drab and uncolorful that  you could miss them on your first look. No way you could miss the logo for the golf course or the one for the utilities workers' union on the golf balls I've had for years.

So which is the rule, and which is the aberration -- the 2 golf balls I've had for years, each with a colorful logo, or the 12 I just bought, very much less colorful?

How many times must I tell you that  I DON' KNOW NUTHIN BOUT NO GOLF?! You tell me which is the aberration.

Thursday, October 10, 2024

Fundamentalist Marxism

Obviously, whenever you read a text which is thousands, or hundreds of years old -- or maybe even decades old when it comes to economics, or even years or months -- even if you rate the text very highly, you will also discard a lot. Because people -- some people, at least -- learn as time goes by.

Then there are fundamentalists: people who regard certain texts as perfect. Most well-known are religious fundamentalists, who are generally unbearable even to the other people in the same religion.

But Marxists are also accused of fundamentalism. I don't know whether it's true of most Marxists, but, Jesus, Lord from above -- so to speak -- it's true of a lot of them. There are a lot of dull-witted Marxists who spend what seems to be their entire lives denouncing anyone who claims to see any contradictions between what Marx wrote, and reality. 

And I don't think that Marx himself can be excused from blame for this. He uses terms like "inevitable" and "immutable" a lot.

It seems that people noticed this similarity to religious fundamentalism in Marx pretty early. In 1847 -- a year before the Communist Manifesto -- Marx published a "Communist Catechism," a satire of the questions and answers which children memorize in order to become members of the Catholic Church, but for Communists instead of Catholics. Ha-ha-ha, not as funny as you thought, Karl!

There's a lot of worthwhile stuff in what Marx wrote. There's a lot of worthwhile stuff in the Bible. There's also a certain amount of nonsense in both the Bible and in Marx. That in itself is unremarkable. Nobody's perfect. Compare the Bible and Marx to other writing done around the same times, and they're really not all that bad.

What is bad, and very unusual, in the case of the Bible and in the case of Marx, are the huge numbers of sheer idiots who cling fiercely, blindly, stupidly, to the worst parts.

Saturday, September 28, 2024

Diva

Yesterday my brother referred to Sabrina Carpenter as a diva. I had no idea what he meant. It could have been one of several distinct things.

So I decided it was time to talk about the word "diva."

I first became aware of the term sometime around 1975. Maybe more like 1973. In any case, as far as I was aware, a diva was a star female opera singer. I didn't know much about opera -- I still don't -- but I heard Beverly Sills and Maria Callas referred to as divas.

Going back a bit further in time, the 1933 Oxford English Dictionary defines a diva as "a distinguished female singer." Etymological sources are given such as Italian meaning "goddess" or "lady-love" and Latin meaning "goddess," feminine of divius, "god."  

The 1933 also mentions the synonym "prima donna," which is Italian for "leading lady," "primary female singer," etc. Opera again. The earliest English usage cited is from Harper's in 1883. In the late 19th century in the English-speaking parts of the world, opera was considered to be something primarily Italian -- correctly? I don't know. I don't know much about opera.

When I first came across the term "diva," in connection with opera, I had heard the term "prima donna," but not in any sense which had to do with opera. A prima donna, as far as I knew, was a spoiled, difficult, unpleasantly egotistical person, gender not specified.

Eventually I learned that the two terms were synonymous, in opera, and in the wider world. Except that "diva," like "punk," was re-claimed by people at who the term was hurled. A diva became something positive, a proud, strong woman who didn't care if you found her difficult. The first non-operatic usage I noticed was it being applied to female pop music stars, like Diana Ross or Patti LaBelle. 

Simultaneously, I noticed that the usage of the term "diva" in opera could be positive or negative. It could denote that a star soprano was a great singer, or that she was an aggravating person. Then I noticed that in the case of Maria Callas, different people applied the term "diva" to her non-singing, offstage life, some positively, some negatively, although they were all referring to the same behavior. What struck some people as difficult and disgraceful, struck others as proud and glorious. 

Or perhaps it was more a case of some regarding a woman as proud and disgraceful, while others saw her as proud and glorious. Reclaiming the intended insult as a compliment. Saying that if you had a problem with this particular goddess, it was strictly your problem. 

I was already somewhat disturbed by people applying the term "diva" to non-operatic singers, when I became aware that it was being applied to people who didn't sing at all. Drag queens, for example. In To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar, the regional-award-winning drag queens refer to themselves as "fierce, ruling divas."

Thinking that over, while getting ready to write this essay, I began to wonder whether the operatic connection might be all in my head, and whether ladies who refer to themselves as divas might not be going back directly to the Latin, skipping opera altogether. As in: opera? What opera? Honey, I'm talking about goddesses! 

Then I remembered that, in To Wong Foo, the book DV by Diana Vreeland is recommended to a young lady as the last word in getting a MAY-un, and of course, Diana Vreeland, whatever else she was or was not, and that's several more essays at least, was utterly incapable of going for an entire book without saying quite a bit about Maria Callas. Of course I've read DV. What, you haven't?! *faints*

So anyway, my point was that I'm going to have to ask my brother just exactly what he meant when he called Sabrina Carpenter a diva.

Saturday, September 14, 2024

EV Public Charging

One evening over 20 years ago, I happened to surf onto "Nightly Business Report." Not the sort of thing which ordinarily held my interest for more than a few seconds, but this time I ended up watching an entire guest commentary or editorial by a columnist from Forbes, a crusty, white bearded curmudgeon who asked, "When are one of you billionaire geniuses going to design a computer I can turn on and off like a TV?"

A darn good question! And all these years later, it still is. The commentator went on to say that computer guys made computers for computer guys, and not for the public. Computers are inconvenient and difficult to use for the general public, because computer guys don't care.

I was reminded of this just a couple of days ago, reading a social media conversation about public EV charging. Someone had started a thread because they were new at using public chargers, and having some difficulty. 

Something lots and lots of people can relate to. And thankfully, they were getting lots of advice, and hopefully, enough of it helped and they can use public chargers now.

But one participant was not helpful, was not friendly. They called the original poster stupid, and had harsh words for people who were "too lazy to learn" how to operate public chargers. 

Personal computers all over again: tech guys know how to do things like public charging, and, basically, screw you if you don't.

I know there are reasons for everything. I know tech guys got wedgies growing up and it made them angry at the whole world.

But there's a difference this time around: computers have never had to compete with any older, more familiar technology. They were new and unique, and they remain unique. EV's are competing with ICE vehicles, and public charging is competing with gas stations. 

And so, many of you may be very relieved to learn, the days when you can just go up to a public charger and swipe a credit card as if you were at a gas station -- no apps -- are already here in parts of Europe and California, which means they will be everywhere soon.

Competition between merchants, between old and new ways of doing things, leading to innovation which directly benefits the consumer. I hate to say it, but maybe Adam Smith wasn't completely wrong about everything.

Monday, September 9, 2024

Dream Log: Selena Gomez

 


I know what some of you are thinking: another movie star?! Steve, you're delusional! To which I say, Not guilty. I know these are just dreams. I know, for example, that Ms Gomez and I have never met. 

On the other hand, I am rather gorgeous, and I have actually, in real life, dated a couple of movie stars. There's nothing weird about that: I was a professional actor for a brief period of time -- "professional" in the sense of actually being paid to act. Not in the sense of having been paid enough to live on -- and actors and actresses do tend to date each other, just the same way people in other professions tend to see each other socially, and a couple of the actresses I dated were, or became since, movie stars. Names? Haha, Nope!

If all the women I ever snuggled with were somehow together in one place and you could see the whole group of them, you'd have a heart attack and die, that's how literally drop-dread gorgeous they have been. And some of them were also actresses.

So. Anyway. Selena. 

In the dream I was near Wakarusa, Indiana, the small town in cornfield-Indiana where I grew up. I didn't think of it as "cornfield-Indiana" when I lived there. I just thought it was weird when I went somewhere else and there were no cornfields, at all. Or only a few, here and there. I've been dreaming a lot about Wakarusa lately. 

In the dream, Selena Gomez and I actually didn't get to the first date: she asked me out, we made arrangements to meet at 8 that evening, and the rest of the dream was mostly me walking and driving between several small houses among the cornfields and looking forward to the date. It was winter, everything was covered with snow. In one front yard were the stumps of several trees which had been recently felled; in another, as if a series were being continued, several trees had been felled, and then the remaining stumps had been carved into the shapes of angels, not elaborate carving, but not what I would call crude either, rather nice. Rather abstract and merely suggestive of the shapes of angels

Then I was inside one of those houses, and there was a land-line phone with an answering machine next to it, and I was doing something involving a message to or from Selena. A small and nerdy-looking man observed what I was doing, shook his head and said I should just grab her already, or she was going to think I was a nerd and dump me. Actually, he worded it even a little bit more crudely than that. I wondered who he was and why he was giving me advice. Did he actually know Selena, or was his advice based on celebrity-gossip TV, or what? What did he care what went on between her and me?

Presumably, Selena was there filming something on location, but I didn't know exactly what. She showed up around 8, and now that I'm awake I realize that it was still daylight, whereas in reality at 8 in the evening in the winter in Wakarusa it would be night-time (you see? I'm able to discern differences between reality and dreams).

I mentioned to Selena that I had grown up in Wakarusa, and she said, "Oh yeah, that little town next to the county line," and I replied that it had been so long since I had been there that I couldn't remember where the county line was. Then I woke up and looked it up, and sure enough, the county line is just a little to the west of Wakarusa.

Thursday, September 5, 2024

A Modest Proposal Concerning Manuscripts Shown in Historical Documentaries

I like some documentaries about archaeology. And I'm very, very much interested in ancient and Medieval texts. And so, when in a well-made film on an archaeological topic, the host takes a break from the digs to go to a library's special collection and show us some old manuscripts, I tend to like it very much indeed.

But still, I think it could be done better. Let's take, for example, one of my favorite archaeological series, In Search of the Dark Ages, written and hosted (or presented, as they say in British English) by Michael Wood and first broadcast on the BBC in the late 1970's and early 1980's. This series, for the most part, covers the Anglo-Saxon period in England and the adjoining Celtic part of Britain. One episode goes earlier, having to to do with the first-century revolt of the British queen Boudica against the Romans. 

Woods walks around historic sites, talking to archaeologists who are supervising digs, or led digs a a while ago, or want to get permission to begin digs, and asks them intelligent questions. Or he walks around historic sites by himself and speaks intelligently to the camera. Occasionally making allusions to current political events which sometimes make me wince with their conservative flavor, but no-one, not even Michael Wood, is perfect. He often quotes from Anglo-Saxon or Latin accounts of Medieval events -- he's a specialist in Anglo-Saxon -- and translates into modern English for the viewer. He seems quite fluent in both Anglo-Saxon and Latin. It's all quite wonderful.

Where I see room for improvement -- and not just in Michael Wood's shows, but in every show I can recall in the archaeological genre -- is in the way in which old manuscripts are presented to the viewer. The scene will shift from a dig to a library, while Wood says in voice over something like, "To find out more about, we must turn to a manuscript in" -- in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, or in the British Library, as the case may be, or somewhere else. 

Wood will walk into special-collections rooms and proceed to read from Latin or Anglo-Saxon precious rare manuscripts. Which is awesome, but -- it leaves out the scholars who are currently working with those manuscripts.

Why not talk to those textual scholars just as he's been talking to the archaeologists? Or at the very least, mention some of them? He reads, in the episode "In Search of Arthur," from the Welsh Annals, the Annales Cambriae, one of the earliest written mentions of King Arthur. He reads the passage about Arthur right from the Bodlian Library's manuscript of the annals, the best existing manuscript.

The thing is, most of us don't have as much access to special collections as Michael Wood does. We can't just drop in and consult the best manuscripts whenever we want to. Luckily for us, in 1860, the Rev John Williams, also well known by his Welsh bardic name Ab Ithel, published an edition of the Annales Canbriae based on the very same manuscript Woods reads from in the show, and two others. 

I would like it if Wood, and other hosts of similar shows, would mention the printed editions that you and I can read. I don't know whether a new edition was being prepared while Wood was filming the show about Arthur. If so, Wood could have interviewed the new editor just as easily as he interviewed all those archaeologists. His interviews with the archaeologists have been wonderful. I see no reason to doubt that his interviews with textual editors would have been just as wonderful. If no new edition was underway at the time, Wood still could have interviewed a scholar and authority on the manuscript. 

In the episode on Boudica he reads from a manuscript of Tacitus' Annals, the primary written source for Boudica's rebellion. Why not also at least hold up to the camera CD Fisher's 1906 Oxford Classical Texts edition of Tacitus' Annals and mention that the viewer could easily get the original Latin text for themself if they so desired? Or, even better, he could have interviewed Heubner or Wellesley, who were working on new editions at the time. 

Being Michael Wood, I'm sure he could've come with far more intelligent questions for the new editors of Tacitus than I ever could, just as he came up with all of those great questions for the archaeologists. 

Let the viewers know, let them see and hear, that textual criticism is a living, ongoing, exciting thing, just like archaeology. It just needs the right host, the right presenter, to put it across. Michael Wood could definitely do it. Show the viewers that they can take part in the text in more ways than just seeing the host go into the library and look at a manuscript. Which is great! I don't want any of the producers to stop showing the manuscripts. I just want them to give the viewers a more solid connection to the manuscripts. And if it's not a famous text like the Welsh Annals or Tacitus, if it's actually still unpublished, then talk about how it isn't even published yet, and about the need for more students of Anglo-Saxon or Medieval Latin or what have you.

Monday, September 2, 2024

Mathematics, AI and Chess

Shannon's number is an estimate of the possible number of games of chess, arrived at by the mathematician and engineer Claude Shannon (1916-2001). Shannon postulated an average of 1000 possible moves for one move by White followed by one move for Black. Then he postulated a typical length of a chess game of 40 moves, and came up with his very famous number, his very famous estimate: there are at least 10 to the 120th power possible different chess games. 

I think Shannon's number is complete garbage. I think it tells us little beyond the fact that Shannon and other mathematicians didn't know much about chess, and that few chess players know much about math. Otherwise, Shannon's number would never have become famous to begin with, and, chastened by so much derisive laughter, he would've headed back to the drawing board to try again. 

In some positions on the chess board, there are many possible moves. For White's first move, there are 20 possible moves: 16 by the Pawns and 4 by the Knights. 20 choices also for Black's first move. There are other position in which a player would have far move than 20 possible moves. For example, if a player had 3 Queens, 2 Bishops, 2 pawns and a lot of space.  

In other positions, a player has only 1 possible move: if his King is under attack and there is one 1 possible way to defend it. Or if there is only 1 possible move which would not expose his King to attack. And there are positions where only 2 moves could defend the King against attack. Or 3, or 4, and so forth.

Or, instead of threats to the King, the number of moves could be limited by his pieces being blocked by his opponent's pieces, or by his own pieces. 

How would one get an average number of moves out of all of these different kinds of positions? How many different positions are there with just 1 possible move? How many positions yield 50 or more possible moves? I have no idea. Not the faintest idea. Furthermore, I have yet to see anyone even asking this very basic kind of question when trying to determine the number of possible chess games. I'm not saying I'm the only person who's asked these questions. I'm saying that not enough people have been asking them insistently enough for the evidence of their existence to have come to my attention.

Okay, now, the number of moves in a game. Average it out at 40, like Shannon? That's ridiculous. Checkmate can happen after 2 moves, or 4 moves. It's not unheard of for checkmate to happen after 10 or 15 moves, or 20 or 30. Conversely, some games have gone on for hundreds of moves. Has anyone even attempted to calculate the number of ways in which a game could last for over 100 moves? Or the number of different ways in which a game could go on, limited by the rule that one player can claim a draw if 50 moves go by during which neither player captures and piece or moves a Pawn? Did you notice that I said that a player CAN claim a draw under those conditions? We may have to make such draws mandatory and automatic if we wish to make the number of different games finite -- or perhaps not, I'm not competent to say.

These are just a few examples of the different numbers which would need to be calculated before one could attempt to combine them all and come up with any sort of reasonable estimate of the number of possible chess games.

I don't believe that AI is here. I haven't seen a product designed by AI which wasn't hideously ugly, haven't read a poem written by AI which wasn't ridiculous, haven't interacted with a search engine or automated call center which wasn't infuriatingly stupid. 

And I haven't seen an impressive attempt yet to estimate the number of possible games of chess, let alone solve the game by coming up with the moves which will always win, or always draw against perfect moves by the opponent, the way that checkers has just recently been solved. And when those things finally do happen, which they will if we don't kill ourselves off first, it being ultimately just a matter of crunching very, very big numbers, actual human-like communication and creativity will still be far off, or, perhaps, ultimately inaccessible to mathematics.

Thursday, August 8, 2024

Mittelhochdeutsch -- Middle High German

 In an earlier post on this blog I wrote about Althochdeutsch, Old High German, written from around AD 750 to 1050. High German written from around 1050 to 1350 is called Mittelhochdeutsch, Middle High German. As with Old High German, the adjective "High" in Middle High German refers to the higher elevations of the hilly and mountainous regions of southern Germany where it is spoken, as opposed to the Plattdeutsch, Low German, spoken in the geographically flatter northern regions bordering on Belgium and the Netherlands.

With Mittelhochdeutsch, German became somewhat more sophisticated and assured, less of a mere exercise in translating from Latin and more of a legitimate literary language of its own. Much has been said about the relative literary merits of Old and Middle High German. I don't wish to take part in this debate. It seems only natural that those who specialize in Old High German would have a higher opinion of the best artistic efforts in that language, than those who don't. I will say, and this is, I believe, entirely uncontroversial, that the earliest works in German which are still widely read today are from the Mittelhochdeutsch era. 

Above all, the work of four Middle High German authors remains very popular: the anonymous author of the Nibelungenlied; Hartmann von Aue; Gottfried von Strassburg; and Wolfram von Eschenbach. In the extraordinarily fruitful period from 1170 to 1250, these four writers published book-length epic poems which a reader fluent in German can read untranslated, although she will probably wish to make frequent use of a Middle-German-to-New-German dictionary. 

The Nibelungenlied is a story of pre-Christian Germanic heroes, mixed with historic elements from the time of Attila the Hun (the character Etzel in the poem is based on Attila). Richard Wagner based his four-part operatic cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen partly on the Nibelungenlied, and partly on the earlier Germanic versions. 

The Nibelungenlied is known as a Heldenepos or heroic epic. The works of Hartmann von Aue, Gottfried von Strassburg and Wolfram von Eschenbach, on the other hand are called hoefische Epen, or courtly epics. They were written by knights, members of the courts of monarchs, for other members of those courts. 

Hartmann von Aue wrote a number of hoefische Epen which survive whole or nearly whole to our time, including Erec, Der arme Heinrich, and Gregorius, all well-known and highly regarded, but he is probably best known for Iwein, his retelling of the story of King Arthur's knight Gawain.

Gottfried von Strassburg's poem Tristan is no doubt best known today from Wagner's operatic version of it, Tristan und Isolde. 

Like Iwein and Tristan, Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival is the tale of a knight of King Arthur's court, and like them it was adapted from a popular French version. Once again, Wagner made an opera based on it, Parsifal. Did Wagner change the v in Wolfram's title to an f in order to help people tell the medieval poem and the 19th century opera apart? Could be, I don't know. This story's hero is known to English Arthurians as Percival, the childlike, simple and innocent knight who catches a glimpse of the Grail. Eschnenbach telling of the tale is quite long, and includes many asides to the reader in which he muses about the meaning of life, or its senselessness, depending on the particular aside. Both Wolfram's skill as a storyteller, and the depth of his frequent asides, are quite remarkable.

These four authors stand rather far above others of the Middle High German era in popularity, perhaps in critical regard as well, but many others are still published and read today, including other epic poets such as Konrad Wuerzburg and Werner der Gaertner as well as some more anonymous authors; lyric poets, some anonymous, some known by name, as far example, Walther von der Vogelweide and Reinmar der Alte; as well as authors of didactic poetry, plays, and theological, legal and historical prose.

Tuesday, July 16, 2024

"That's not what I mean when I say 'God,'" Revisited

Years ago I posted an essay on this blog entitled "That's not I mean when I say 'God,'" in which I vented some frustration because belief in God came in so many different forms, some of which didn't seem like theism at all to me.

I'm not frustrated about it anymore. I'm come to appreciate much more the slack which is routinely cut me by others, and I am much more glad to cut others slack, when it comes to religious beliefs. Who am I to tell other people what's what about such things? This represents a great change for me.

Some theists believe God is a man, or that God is male. Others think God is female, and still others think that the concept of gender does not apply to God. Some believe that God is a conscious, omnipotent being who created everything, knows and sees everything and cares about every living creature. Others think that God is an idea, which might sound to some of us atheists as if they are atheists, but no, they call themselves theists or Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or what have you, and when they talk about God, often they sound very much like the ones who think that God made everything and is a man with along white beard who sits on a throne. 

It would be nice if there were some sort of general agreement about what people mean when they say "God," but there isn't. Not even close. This of course makes everything very frustratingly murky and inconsistent to some of us when we try to have some sort of rational debate with theists about God. But it's been this way for somewhere between 500 and 3,000 years, or longer (we don't know how long monotheism has existed). So perhaps -- and I do mean perhaps! I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else how to go about things -- perhaps the first thing someone should do, if they want to talk to a theist about God, is to have them explain what they mean when they say "God." and sit comfy, cause it might take a while, and if they are able to explain it to you at all I'm not saying that this will be enough to permit a nice logical conversation -- imagine! Theism conflicting with rational discourse! -- and I'm certainly not encouraging anyone to debate theism with anyone.

Monday, July 1, 2024

Dream Log: Western Movie

I dreamed I was an actor in a Western movie. Two families were feuding, one headed by Brian Dennehy, the other by Johnny Depp. I was playing Johnny's loyal cousin and number-two in our family's chain of command. 

The two families' houses were very close: sometimes within a quarter mile or so, at other times literally parts of the same building. The fight scenes were often room-by-room gun battles.

For the most part, everything in the movie, countryside, sets, decor, costumes, was classic Hollywood Western, inspired by a notion of the late 19th century. However, my revolvers, instead of the historically-accurate long-barreled single-action variety, requiring that the hammer be cocked before every shot, were double-action snubnosed .38's of the kind seen used by plainclothed cops in mid-20th-century movies and TV. The hammer on a double-action revolver can be cocked between shots, resulting in a trigger which shoots with a lighter pull required -- single-action -- or the shooter can pull harder on the trigger with cocking it first, and the gun will still fire -- double-action. I was packing two of those snubnosed .38's, each about half as long as an authentic single-action revolver of the Old West. 

Partway through the script, Dennehy's character devolved into a plain coward, and the action consisted mostly of us chasing him through his, house, firing enormous amounts of bullets at him -- and always missing, or else the movie would have been over too soon. 

At one point we had him cornered inside a glassed-walled segment of a room in his house. Several of us stood outside the glass-walled compartment, about a dozen feet square, and pumped dozens of bullets at the glass. The glass not only didn't shatter -- it was barely scratched. I felt this to be a particularly unrealistic bit of movie-making, and began to lose faith that this might turn out to be a good movie.

Suddenly all of the actors, those in Dennehy's family and in Depp's, stopped acting, and instead they just sat around and turned into Marxist jerks who were unkindly, and wholly inaccurately, criticizing me. They all agreed that I was the sort of person who would go to Milan during peak tourist season, fetishizing the ultra-expensive cars of the super-rich, and their boats on Lake Como.

Their criticism could barely have been less accurate: I don't like crowds, I like crowds of tourists even less, I don't envy ultra-cars, in fact I find them rather ridiculous, I lost my fascination for them decades ago, and the next time I really enjoy being on a boat will the first time.

But before I could begin to defend myself from this inaccurate Marxist criticism, I woke up.

Sunday, June 30, 2024

Why Study Latin?

Today, many people who study Latin describe it as a hobby. For others, it is much more.

As recently as few hundred years ago, anyone in Western Europe considering a career in academia, or diplomacy, or anything else which involved constant contact with an international group of people, had to have a good grasp of Latin. They had to be able to read it, write, and speak it at least a little, and preferably more than just a little.

And therefore, anyone today who wants to read about any of those people, about Elizabeth I of England, or Wallenstein, or John Milton, or Martin Luther, is only going to get so far without needing to be able to read Latin. 

Western philosophy from Lucretius to Decartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, and a not inconsiderable amount even more recently, is in Latin. Catholic theology until 1962, and a great deal of the earliest Protestant theology, is in Latin. Newton Wrote about physics in Latin, Gauss about mathematics, Linnaeus about biology. Francis Bacon, Galileo, Hobbes, all wrote in Latin.

You might object that all of the people I've named so far also wrote in other languages, and you'd be right, although just barely in the case of Spinoza. You can read works in their original form by all of the above without knowing any Latin, although only a very little work in Dutch by Spinoza. 

But go back another few hundred years, and many of the leading minds wrote only in Latin: Roger Bacon, William of Occam, Thomas Aquinas, Gerard of Cremona, Albertus Magnus.

As did the historians Gregory of Tours, Bede, Einhard, Nithard, William of Malmsbury, William of Tyre, Matthew Paris, Henry of Huntington, and many others, including many anonymous chroniclers, many of them good writers, many famously bad, but all of them writing in Latin.

Church records, baptisms, marriages and funerals, inscriptions on tombstones, public buildings and currency. Government archives. Compendiums of laws.

And then there is the ancient Latin which remains, relatively small in quantity but generally very high in quality, which we call the Latin Classics, read, quoted and emulated by all of the above. Especially in the Latin Renaissances of the 9th, 12th, 15th and 19th centuries. 

And I mustn't forget to mention all of the Latin poetry and plays and fiction written since the ancient era.

And is a 21st century Latin Renaissance already underway? Some seem to think so. The number of people going to the trouble of learning to speak Latin, not just to recite it but to engage in spontaneous Latin conversation, seems to be rising. 

As I said, for some, Latin is a wonderful hobby. It does nothing but make them happy. But given all of the above sorts of Latin available today to be read, it seems to me that a writer could make more than a hobby of it. A poet, an historian or a philosopher. Yes, for many different sorts of authors, the above-listed sorts of written Latin could offer more than just a hobby.

Friday, June 28, 2024

MSM Coverage of the Presidential Debate, June 2024

 Over and over, I'm seeing descriptions of the debate which go much like this:

"Donald Trump, former President and convicted felon awaiting sentencing, lied his ass off, as he always does -- but Joe had a cold and stuttered. A clear, crushing win for Trump!"

How about if you focus on those lies Trump told, go through them and refute them one by one, mainstream media -- you know: how about if you did your job for once? Remind people of what a disaster Trump's presidency was, and how another term under Trump would definitely be worse? 

You know: the way you did for about 12 hours on January 6, 2021, when Trump's lunacy finally hit home close enough to you that it scared you into actually talking about what had been going on under your noses for 5 years, instead of your endless, useless twaddle about polls and trends and images and perceptions? When the tide of Trumpian crap temporarily scared you into letting your actual opinions show, your opinions about what you study all day every day for a living, letting them show on actual TV, where they might benefit people who are busy with a lot of other things, but who would nevertheless care greatly about politics if you simply talked to them about it? If you would simply, finally do your jobs.

Trump tried to shut down the EPA, called climate change a hoax, he separated refugee children from their parents at the border, he waged a cold war against American Muslims, he let countless people die of COVID because those people simply weren't nearly as important to him as his delusional self-image -- and a second Trump term would be much worse, but it's more important to you to focus on every single time Joe stutters! You're so much worse than useless!

Thursday, June 27, 2024

When You Have a Very Specific Question on Social Media...

 ...like say you have a very specific question about a certain sort of widget, so you go to the widgets sub on Reddit cause you figure at least some of the world's leading widget experts must hang out there, and you search first to see if someone else has already asked, but no, so you post with a very specific question, make it clear as day that you came there because you wondered about this very specific thing...

And -- of course -- someone leaves a very long comment about important things about widgets, all of which you already knew, and says nothing about what you asked. So you thank them, but repeat that why you came there was because of the question you already stated very clearly.

So of course they leave an even longer reply full of important things in the history of widgets, still haven't said a thing you didn't already know, still haven't answered your question -- OH! but at the end of this long comment they say something you already suspected: they've never heard of the kind of widget you asked about.

So you express a little mild annoyance. And so then a couple of his friends and admirers chime in, saying things like, "Oh, so you're saying you don't care about all these important things this important man has taken his important time to tell you, you ungrateful worm [...]"

When all you actually said was that Mr Important didn't answer your very specific question, the very specific reason you came to that sub, and no-one else has answered it either, even though you've repeated it four or five times by now and emphasized as clearly as you know how to that it -- your specific question -- is why you came there in the first place.

When you clearly have a specific question, people who don't know the answer DON'T NEED TO COMMENT. 

But they do, don't they. Sure as rain in Oregon. And now it seems very likely that no-one in the sub will ever answer your question, and you're going to be perma-banned from the sub.

Grad school can be like that, unfortunately. That's why I finally dropped out.

Sunday, June 9, 2024

Festugiere on Hermes Trismegistus: The Most Puzzling Book I've Yet Attemtpted to Read

 La révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste: Edition Definitive, by AJ Festugière.

I've read Gravity's Rainbow, Finnegans Wake, everything by Gaddis, Eco in Italian+, Adorno in German, Cervantes in Spanish, Ovid and many others in Latin, and none of them gave me any particular problem.

But I can't even tell you yet what Festugiere's book is, what kind of book it is. Oh, I can tell you one thing for sure, one thing some will no doubt find helpful: it is not not the Corpus Hermeticum, the primary Greek and Latin texts of which were edited by Nock and published with facing-page translations into French by Festugiere. In addition to the volumes by Nock and Festugiere, the Coptic and Armenian parts of the corpus were published by JP Mahe, also with French facing-page translations. I Ramelli also published one very convenient, although large, volume of all of the above except for the Armenian text, with facing-page translation in Italian. Also, all of the above volumes contain thorough introductions and commentaries, in French or Italian as the case is.

Those Greek, Latin, Coptic and Armenian texts are the Corpus Hermeticum, the primary texts of the Hermetic religion or philosophy, however you wish to describe it.

Festugiere's Revelation -- is not that. It's often described as a collection of the primary Hermetic texts, but it isn't. Like Festugiere's and Nock's collection of the primary texts, it was first published in 4 volumes beginning in the 1940's -- but 4 different volumes. It contains many, many excerpts of texts written both before and after the Corpus Hermeticum, texts which, whether in agreement or opposition, inspired Hermeticism and in turn were inspired by it, mostly, but not all, translated into French, and with thorough introductions and commentaries. What is it exactly? Festugiere's description of Hermetic religion? That would be my best guess.

I have not spent much time studying theology, in fact I have spent a good portion of my life avoiding theology. That no doubt accounts for much of my difficulty here.

So why am I not avoiding theology as assiduously as I used to, like a good atheist? Because I have loved so many people to whom these things have been so important, that I cannot ignore them any more. My apologies to Johann Wolfgang von ("-- und leider auch Theologie --") Goethe, who I think would understand.

One of the very last parts of this enormous book, one of the very last appendices, contains a translated text by Proclus under a title saying that finding God is difficult and explaining God is impossible. Maybe I should have a long, good laugh at that, and not try to explain what this book is, besides brilliant.

Another good, long laugh for me personally: Hegel puzzles me profoundly, and recently I've come across the assertion the he was an Hermeticist. 

Sunday, June 2, 2024

Ancient Manuscripts of Classical Latin

Sir Kenneth Clark, talking about the Italian Renaissance, put the number of surviving ancient manuscripts at no more than 3 or 4, and I naturally jumped right out of my skin, all the more so because Ken generally knew what he was talking about.

No, Texts and Transmission unfortunately does not give a total, although it naturally can be some help here.

If we take AD 500 as the cut-off point, Mynors' edition of Vergil lists 7 or 8 (7 or 8 because one is described as "saec. v/vi"), there are 7 or 8 ancient fragments of Cicero (once again because one is of the 5th or 6th century), the palimpsest of Fronto is of the 5th century, and the palimpsest of Gaius is 5th century, that of Gallus 1st century BC. There's a 4th-century palimpsest of Gellius, a 5th-century palimpsest of Granius, 6 ancient Livian manuscripts, 3 ancient fragments of Lucan, a 5th-century palimpsest of Plautus, 3 ancient fragments of the Elder Pliny and 1 of the Younger Pliny.

We have 7 ancient fragments of Sallust, 1 ancient manuscript of (the Younger) Seneca and 5 of Terence.

That makes a total of 46, or 47 or 48. No doubt I missed some and the actual total is higher.

On the other hand, of course, it is entirely possible that Sir Kenneth knew exactly what he was talking about and I don't -- few things could be less surprising than that. If he was referring to the number of ancient MSS known in the 15th century, the number would be smaller than 46, a number of pailmpsests and papyri having been discovered in the meantime. If he was referring to the number known in Italy in the 15th century, the number would naturally shrink again, and even more if he was referring to the number known to a particular individual 15th-century Italian Classicist.

And of course, it can be that Ken had an earlier cut-off date in mind than AD 500.

And of course, if anyone knows of any MSS that I missed, I'd be delighted to hear about it. 

Saturday, June 1, 2024

Can We Please Stop Calling it "the Hush Money Trial"?

If Trump had paid Stormy Daniels hundreds of thousands of dollars out of his own pocket to perform intimate acts with him and then not to discuss it publicly, it would have been pathetic and disgusting, like most of the things Trump says and does, but he wouldn't have been put on trial for it, and he wouldn't have been found guilty of 34 felony counts. Non-disclosure agreements are pretty sleazy generally, but they're legal. Let's be clear about it: Trump was put on trial, and was found guilty of all of those felonies, because he paid for the non-disclosure agreement with misappropriated funds.

And let's be even more clear: "misappropriating funds" is one of those white-collar euphemisms for "stealing money." Trump stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from his 2016 Presidential campaign fund and used that money to pay for the non-disclosure agreement. 

I don't know whether I would have understood what Trump's recently-concluded criminal trial in New York City was about, if I hadn't seen a cartoon years ago, showing Mitch McConnell on Fox News, saying, while Paul Ryan stood next to him, nodding his head with tears in his eyes, something to the effect of "What two consenting adults do behind closed doors with big bags of campaign donations is nobody's business!" I can't find that cartoon now. I apologize to the cartoonist for not being able to give them proper credit.

Friday, May 10, 2024

In Case You've Ever Wondered Why the Mascot of Columbus' NHL Team is a Bee..



I was actually there in Columbus for several years before the team debuted in 2000. The team's name and uniforms and mascot were daily topics of conversation. I moved from NYC to Columbus in 1997. At that time, the Columbus NHL team was definitely going to happen, but the team didn't have a name yet. This was a huge deal to the locals, because it was going to be Columbus' first major-league sports team, if you don't count the Columbus Crew of Major League Soccer. And of course, no one counted Major League Soccer as major-league sports. Maybe today, but in the 1990's? Hahahaha.

So, the sequence of events was: first they came up with the name, and everybody was all like: ooh, Civil War soldiers! Warriors for justice and freedom! Bold choice! Big balls! Nicely done, new hockey team!

Then, they made the mascot a bee wearing a jacket and seemed to strictly forbid all mention of any war, and everybody was like, what the...???

FIVE guys from Ohio who were Union officers in the Civil War later became President: Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and McKinley. FIVE. Presidents from the rest of the world who served in the Civil War and then became President: TWO. Andrew Johnson and Chester A Arthur. 

Down South, it's often said (after making sure that no reporters are around) that the Civil War isn't over yet. 

But it's also often said in Ohio (after first making sure that no reporters are around). So, there's that. 

The silly thing about the Columbus Blue Jackets is that they lost their balls and de-emphasized the Civil War meaning of the team's name. But if you look closely at the jacket on the mascot, you can see yellow trim on the blue jacket, somewhat like 19th-century US Army uniforms. Also, the bee mascot, named Stinger, is sometimes seen next to a 2nd mascot who looks like a 19th-century artillery piece, named Boomer. 

They didn't have the guts to continue talking publicly about what the name means, but the clues are still there, for the diligent sports detective.

Sunday, April 14, 2024

Hegel??

"After decades of trying and utterly failing to see what could possibly be worthwhile in Hegel's philosophy, I believe I've had a breakthrough."

That's the first paragraph of an essay I posted here on December 11, 2023. 4 months later, it seems more and more likely that what I understood was a YouTube which purported to be about Hegel. Does that video actually have anything to do with Hegel? I don't know. I don't have any Earthly. I can't even. 

 


What we have here, now as before, is failure to communicate. We're back to where we were before last December. I am not getting the message from Hegel's texts. 

Unless I am. Unless Schopenhauer was right about Hegel's philosophy: that it was pseudo-intellectual gibberish successfully passing itself off as philosophy. But I can't be sure about that anymore. 

It's not that I am afraid to assail the reputation of a celebrated thinker and purported genius. Every word Susan Sontag published or said on a broadcast was pseudo-intellectual garbage, delivered with that smug grin William Gaddis warned us about. Spengler is, im Grunde genommen, pretty silly, and hugely overrated. But at least much more entertaining than Sontag.

It's not that I can't follow philosophers in general. With those up to and including Hegel's most celebrated immediate forerunner Kant, and also with those following him, although I must often read very slowly and repeat certain passages, I don't get this feeling I get with Hegel. Not with Kant himself, not with Heidegger, not with Adorno. Not with the world's most famous Hegelian, Marx. 

Well, as Kierkegaard said -- Kierkegaard, who has often delighted me, often made me shake my head chidingly, but never puzzled me: enten -- eller. Either Hegel has fooled a great number of very smart people, who regard him as a great genius, but not me, or Schopenhauer, or Kierkegaard -- or all of those people have significantly smarter than all three of us, at least in this regard.

I can easily admit it when a single person is clearly more intelligent than I  -- okay, not easily, but I can admit it. When an entire group is outdoing me, it's disturbing. 

It sort of reminds me of the historical Jesus question. I've studied it pretty thoroughly. Most of the people who have studied it pretty thoroughly say that it's pretty obvious that a person named Jesus preached in Galilee and Jerusalem in the 20's, 30's or 40's AD, that he said many of the things in the text we today call the Sermon on the Mount, and that he was crucified on Pilate's orders. 

Well, it's still not obvious at all to me. That light bulb above my head, which is supposed to go on when I see how the evidence all adds up to Jesus having really lived and preached and been crucified by Pilate -- that light bulb is not on, it has not begun to flicker. The Biblical scholars go over the evidence, and to me, they're making the case that it's possible Jesus existed, the case that it's conceivable -- and then they say, so you see, it's really certain that he existed! And I shout wearily: No! I don't see!

I also don't see how I'm not keeping up with what those Biblical scholars are saying. Let's take the example of another famous controversy: were the writers of the New Testament wrong when they said that a virgin birth was prophesied by Isaiah? Yes. They were wrong. Bart Ehrman explained this to me in less than half a minute. To make a short story even shorter: read the entire chapter of Isaiah 7, and as Ehrman said: shame on all of us supposedly brilliant people for not already having read the entire chapter. It's not long. The Hebrew word can mean "virgin," or simply "young women," somewhat like the English term "maiden." Reading Isaiah 7, the entire short chapter, makes it clear that the Greek New Testament authors were mistaking in translating the word as "virgin" instead of simply "young woman."

I had zero trouble keeping up with that. But understanding what is so great about Hegel...

Wednesday, April 10, 2024

Clubs, By Someone Who Knows Nothing About Clubs

There are two kinds of people: people who seriously say that there are two kinds of people, and those like me, who only say it when we are joking. So imagine my surprise when it occurred to me just now that there ARE two kinds of people: those who don't go to clubs, and those who talk about going to clubs as if it were a necessary part of life.

I don't think I've EVER been to a club. Surely I would have remembered. I remember countless times I've walked past long lines of people hoping to get into a club, feeling sorry for them because I assumed it couldn't be good enough to justify going to so much trouble. Although how would I know, right? Although I've never stood in those lines and never gotten past those bouncers, I've known enough people who have to know they'd feel sorry for me if they knew I'd never been. And some would probably have a very difficult time believing I don't envy them.

I've seen countless fictional depictions of clubs in TV shows and movies, with the pretty young women dancing, the expensively-dressed young men at the bar drinking, and the international crime lords at the dimly-lit large round tables in back or up a flight a stairs. 

I've been in business establishments, called bars or discos, where there was drinking and dancing, but they didn't have those long lines of people trying to get past those huge bouncers, so I don't think you call them clubs. If you do, then I was wrong, and yeah, I've been in clubs. Cause I'm a dancin' machine.

I loved the TV series "Alias,"

but that part where 80% or so of the world's most evil supercriminals seemed to have their offices in clubs, either in the back or up a flight of stairs -- that part never seemed the least bit realistic to me, but how would I know, I've never been there.

Of course, there are at least two kinds of clubs: the dancing, yuppie, crimelord, bouncer type we've been discussing, and then the sort which used to be called gentlemen's clubs, and no, I don't mean strip clubs, which are often these days called "gentlemen's club's," making a running total of at least three kinds of clubs -- I mean the kind of club where, a century ago, only men, and almost only wealthy WASP's, would go and drink, but very quietly, and also smoked cigars and secretly ran the country, and they were all sitting in big leather armchairs. For a description of what "gentlemen's club" used to mean before it meant "strip club" -- and what it may still mean, except that they would have to have another name for it now, and they may be a bit more ethnically- and gender-inclusive these days -- see pp 18-19 of G William Donhoff's Who Rules America, 1st edition, 1967. Are many of these old type of clubs really still men-only? Really, it's so very hard for me to care. I'm certain that Jordan Peterson cares enough for himself and me and many other people, and would never begin to believe, if he knew me, that I don't envy him.

Perhaps the two types of clubs have much more in common than I would have thought at first. Besides the huge obvious differences in decibel levels and aerobic calorie-burning, they both are defined by exclusivity. The one type keeps people out with huge bouncers, the other kept them out with social and ethnic and gender prejudice.

And I'm sure lots of clubbers of both types would never believe how little they impress me. They'd be convinced I just can't bear to admit how much I envy them. Hmm. What do you think?

Sunday, April 7, 2024

Message to a Fellow Atheist About Atheism, Veganism and Feminism

Okay. I'm going to try to explain to you -- AGAIN -- why I sometimes get annoyed with you on the subject of religion.

This post may be annoying to you, too -- but suck it up, it'll be good for you, if you let it. If you freaking LISTEN.

It's not because you're an atheist. I'm an atheist too. I hope you realize that. I really hope you do. And I hope you also realize that other atheists probably have the same problem with you. And, for example, with Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher and Sam Harris and Stephen Fry.
 
 
Except that they're not trying so freaking hard to HELP. They won't go to the excruciating effort to try to explain it to you. They'll just stop talking to you.

This time, I will try to explain by comparing atheists, vegans and feminists.

Probably, most people you meet who are vegans will never mention it to you. But there are a few who who are a huge pain in the ass about it. Even if you agree with them that veganism could solve the climate crisis and wipe out human poverty if every human became vegan.
 
You might agree with them about that. You might agree with them about many more benefits of veganism. You could BE a vegan, and still find them to be a huge pain in the ass the same way you and I do, and for the very same reason: over and over again, whether the subject is politics or history or technology or whatever, as soon as they see a connection to veganism, they make the entire conversation about veganism.

The same thing can happen with feminism. You could be a huge, committed feminist. You could believe that feminism is the most important topic that humans could possibly discuss. And I might just completely agree. And still, it could be between extremely difficult and impossible to stand talking to you sometimes, if you made conversations grind to a halt by making them all about feminism. 

Some conversations ARE all about feminism. But some aren't. Some conversations are all about veganism, but others aren't. Until they're highjacked by some pain in the ass who is incapable of discussing anything else. Then the conversations grind to a halt, unless two or more such pains in the ass happen to be present. Everyone else will leave and find something much, much, much more interesting to do.

This brings us back to you, and the subject of religion. Religion, which has permeated human life for most of the time that there have been humans. So that it's fairly hard to discuss history, archaeology, anthropology, politics, economics or sociology while entirely avoiding the subject of religion. But some people will try anyway, if you're around. Because the conversation was interesting and they wanted it to continue.

Okay. I tried. Again. I guess I'll try again. Even though it's exhausting and a huge pain in the ass. Because the odds are very slim that, this, time, you got it.

Saturday, March 30, 2024

The Ongoing Uphill Battle Against Nonsense

The other day I was in an online discussion which had been started by someone who said that we had no primary sources for 7th-century European history. This amounted to asserting that nothing written in Europe during the 7th century has survived to our day -- or, if one were inclined to be especially generous to them, one could understand them as having said that no historical writing had survived from the 7th century.

The assertion was completely wrong either way, of course. They replied to me by moving the goalposts and saying that we had very few primary sources for the 7th century, and that any given century during the Roman Empire was better-known to us today. I replied that I wasn't sure that the 3rd century wasn't even more poorly attested than the 7th. As an example, I mentioned the Augustan Histories, a purported collection of biographies of Emperors by six different authors, focusing mainly on the 3rd century, upon which both Gibbon and Burckhardt had relied heavily for the period, although both of them were utterly exasperated by its many inaccuracies. There simply wasn't much more writing to be consulted for the 3rd century -- and there still isn't, I added, although today almost all scholars agree that the Augustan histories are the work of one author, not six, and a growing number are coming to suspect that the work is not really history at all, but something more like a parody of historical writing. 

 

At this point someone else said that Gibbon and Burckhardt were very antiquated, and that we today had access to many more sources of 3rd century history than they did.

All fake innocence, I replied that I was fascinated to hear this, and asked them to list some of these sources. I was partly convinced that they were talking out of their butt, and partly curious about whether they actually knew of some 3rd-century sources I hadn't yet heard of. 

They did not. Their reply listed a few Latin authors, all of whom are cited by both Gibbon and Burckhardt, and some of whom are much later than 3rd century and therefore not primary sources. They added that we had Greek sources as well! Not to mention an enormous amount of Roman legal writing and court cases.

Gibbon and Burckhardt were both quite fluent in Greek and cited Greek authors very frequently in their works, and Gibbon, at least, consulted sources in still other ancient languages. Whether he read these untranslated, or had someone translate them for him, I'm not certain. Gibbon greatly advanced the practice of adhering to primary sources, and  Burckhardt was a Musterbeispiel of it. 

And the amount of Roman legal writing we have is not enormous. We have the Corpus Juris Civilis, a summary compiled by Justinian in the 6th century in the 6th century, and a few more items. Romans did not preserve records of every single court case that way we do.

And in any case, Gibbon and Burckhardt had access to these legal writings. 

Other than inscriptions and coins (some classify coins as inscriptions, some don't) which have been discovered and catalogued since their time, and the mostly Greek papyri discovered mostly at Oxyrhynchus, there is in fact very little writing about the Roman Empire which we have and Gibbon and Burckhardt didn't.

And this guy didn't know it. They were saying they "couldn't remember at the moment" all the details of Gibbon and Burckhardt, while making it pretty clear to those have have read Gibbon and Burckhardt, that they haven't.

So what? Happens all the time, somebody talking out of their butt on the Internet. What was different about this time?

This time it made me sad. And also a little ashamed, because this person reminded me a little bit of me: half-bright enough to get away with some of his BS.  I try to talk nonsense less than I used to, but I don't know that I've actually stopped yet. It's hard to stop a train.

Of course, BS doesn't fool everybody. Most of the people who know you're full of it just stop talking to you. 

But not all of them. Over the past couple of years another person on the Internet has corrected me over and over on points of Latin and subjects related in one way or another to Latin literature. It's a new experience for me, and very annoying. I don't know whether they're too young to realize how annoying the corrections are, or too autistic, or what.

Annoying or not, I realize that the corrections are good for me. They help me learn -- you know? So I thank them, and do my best to hide my annoyance.

Thursday, March 28, 2024

PC Language Rules, Part Deux

I'm Leftist: I believe in affirmative action and other legal protections for women, ethnic minorities and non-cis-hets. I believe in higher taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, and more spending, much more, on the social safety net, education, the transition to carbon-free energy, modernizing the grid, reforestation, afforestation, restoration of wetlands, getting Nazis off of police forces and innocent people out of prison, etc, etc. I'm completely in favor of more care, love and respect, much more, for those who are outcast, neglected and abused.

I am NOT in step with most leftists when it comes to PC language rules. Telling people that there is a politically-correct and a politically-incorrect way of phrasing things is not helpful with any of the goals listed in the previous paragraph. It's not helpful with anything at all, except for the power of those who impose the PC rules on the rest of us. It's a huge waste of time and energy for everyone else.

Political correctness is so stupid, and so many people submit to it, with conviction or out of fear, that it provides a lot of political ammunition to the Right. They can claim they they're not allowed to say this and that. That's nonsense, of course, like most of what the Right says. Everyone can say whatever they want, and take the consequences, now as always. The consequences now do not include imprisonment. Political correctness has not actually enacted any laws. But so many people voluntarily submit to its rules that the Right can claim that they're not allowed to say this or that without getting laughed out of most rooms.

In the mid-20th century, when there were actual laws against saying or writing certain words, Lenny Bruce and others heroically protested. Lenny spent a lot of time in jail for the sake of free speech. 


 

It was done then, it can be done again. For the time being, it can even be done without risking going to jail for it.

We really need to take the issue of free speech back from the Right. They're doin' it wrong. It shouldn't be something that's good only for those who already have the most power.

Monday, February 12, 2024

EV Drivers

One thing that reactionary yahoos have long said about EV drivers is that they are smug. Well, I've been driving an EV for a while now, and, strangely, I AM smug about it. I DO feel superior to the drivers of the noisy, smelly dinosaur-burners all around me, as I dart nearly silently among them. Intellectually superior, morally superior, and definitely sexier! Superior every which way. I am the dog's biscuits. 

I can't open the rear doors yet, but I've googled it, and it's just a matter of settings and interior buttons. It'll come. I'll figure it out. I don't know why that overhead light comes on all the time, even in the brightest parts of the sunniest days, but I'll figure that out too! Just the same that I figured out where the radio's volume knob was! My brother helped with the volume knob. He's literally a rocket scientist and is wicked smart. With his help I'll get the charging situation sorted out. 

And you would not BELIEVE how smug I feel about it all. And I'm a person who's rarely felt smug about anything. Apparently I occasionally appear to be smug. People have sometimes accused me of smugness, but they've been wrong. Now they're right.

As the old saying goes: even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The yahoos were bound to be right about something eventually.  

I'm not saying that these feelings of superiority are accurate, just that I'm feeling them. For several months before the EV, I was without any sort of  personal-transportation vehicle. I walked or I took the bus. And I definitely THINK that those who do so are better than all of us who drive, no matter what we drive. 

But I didn't have this smirking, smug FEELING when I was on foot.

Can anyone else out there relate? Are we right to feel this way? Are we being manipulated by Big Something? Are are we the Vanguard of the Future? Are we silly? Maybe a little from Column A and a little from Column B?

Sunday, February 4, 2024

Continuing Education on YouTube

Stefan Milo is a British archaeologist who lives with his family in Murrka and has a great YouTube channel called, wittily enough, Stefan Milo: 

Well. There was supposed to be a link to Stefan's YouTube channel here. But we seem to be having even more technical difficulties. I repeat: it's on YouTube, it's called Stefan Milo and it's great.

I don't know what sort of archaeologist Milo is. He's very self-deprecating about his intellect and his academic accomplishments -- too much so, I would guess. He regularly talks to world-leading archaeologists on his channel, and he seems to keep up them pretty well. He has a degree in Archaeology from the University of Sheffield, but I don't know whether it's a Doctorate or some lesser degree.

I don't know whether he's published a lot of peer-reviewed papers. He's published a children's book about archaeology; he talks about that book a lot on his channel. 

I do feel that I've learned a lot about archaeology from Milo's channel after a few weeks of binge-watching his videos. That is in large part because I find his videos pleasant to watch: he has an engaging personality and his videos have good production values. 

For just a little while I said to myself: since Milo didn't make a career in academia, now he has to be an academic and a performer as well. And then suddenly it struck me: all teachers are performers. Some are good performers, some aren't. Milo is one of the ones who are more effective because they're more engaging and likeable.

I don't know why it took me until I was 62 years old to grasp this, but it's been grasped. Of course teachers who fascinate their students are more effective than those who repel them. And some teachers started showing slides decades ago, if not centuries, and some of them have been very good with the visual aids, and that doesn't hurt a bit when it comes to actual task of education.

Milo makes a great contrast here to Bart Ehrman, probably the world's most famous living academic authority on the subject of Jesus and early Christianity. Ehrman can be seen as having at least three separate careers: as an author of academic books, which contain footnotes and multilingual bibliographies and are peer-reviewed; an author of popular books, which eschew the footnotes and bibliographies, are aimed at the "general public," and sell several times as much as the academic books, routinely making bestseller lists; and also as a teacher who stands in front of students and talks.

Nowadays, of course, teaching is done not only in classrooms, but also in front of cameras, in the making of various kinds of videos. I've watched quite a few of Ehrman's videos lately, and... and I like his academic books very much.  So do many academics. And his popular books must have hundreds of thousands of ardent fans among the "general public" by now. If not actually millions.

Ehrman also appears on many YouTube channels, some seem to be run in part by him, and he's a guest on many others, and the videos get millions and millions and millions of views.

Would they get so many views without the books? I really have to wonder. There are probably some people who find Ehrman to be the epitome of charisma, because when there are millions and millions and millions of views, there will be every conceivable opinion. 

I watch the videos for Ehrman's knowledge. I have to put up with a lot of teeth-grittingly annoying behavior in order to get to that knowledge. One channel which Ehrman seems to at least partly control, is actually hosted by a British woman, and every video starts with her asking "Bart" about the latest in his private life, and why?! "Bart" never says anything edifying or remotely interesting in these intros, and I've taken to skipping ahead to where they're actually talking about Jeebus.

What a huge contrast to Stefan Milo's video, where the occasional glimpses of his wife and baby girl are actually charming, and sometimes even tied in relevantly to to the archaeological content.

Ehrman has said many times that his students in North Carolina are from North Carolina, and therefore are often fundamentalists, and therefore are often quite astonished by what he has to teach them. He's said this many times just that I've seen. How many times has he insulted his students in pretty much the identical way in his entire life?! It boggles the boggles. Why not try some new material for a change, and tell the world about the most surprisingly clever things he's heard from his students lately? 

And his laugh. Ehrman's laugh just sets my teeth on edge. it literally sounds like "Hyuck hyuck hyuck!"

Anyhow. Stefan Milo's videos on YouTube, and Bart Ehrman's academic books, the ones with the footnotes and bibliographies, are what I recommend. 

Also, since I'm sure some of you are wondering now that I've mentioned Ehrman: no, I am still not convinced that Jesus existed. I agree with Ehrman that most of the most prominent living mythicists, Price and Carrier and Freke and Gandy and Fitzgerald et al, are bozos as well as unpleasant people, I agree with him that Atlantis was not real and that the Egyptians and Mayas built all of those amazing buildings all by themselves, with no extra-terrestrial help whatsoever. I will almost always side with the academic consensus in the sciences and humanities. "Academic cover-up" strikes me as an oxymoron. I agree with Ehrman that there is no reason to doubt that Socrates and Caesar and Alexander the Great and Pilate and Herod Antipater and John the Baptist and Saul/Paul of Taurus were real people, and I trust Ehrman's opinion about which of the Pauline epistles were written by Paul and which of the Platonic dialogues were written by Plato, and about many, many other things. 

But I still haven't had that  "AHA!"-moment where it suddenly makes sense what Ehrman and almost all other academics say about Jesus: that he certainly existed. I'm also not certain that he never existed, the way I am with, for example, King Arthur. When it comes to Jesus' existence, I'm on the fence, where I've been for at least 30 years.