par•si•mo•ny (noun)
using the simplest or most frugal route of explanation possible.
Origin: Latin (parsimonia = to spare)
~~~~~~~~~~
In biology, more specifically, evolutionary biology, there exists a concept called the Principle of Parsimony, which states that when attempting to map phylogenetic trees, the tree that maps its taxa using the LEAST number of changes is the most evolutionarily correct tree. This is logical, seeing as more closely related taxa share the most characteristics, and thus have changed the least. I quite enjoy saying that things are "parsimonious" or not (e.g. The third tree in this diagram is more parsimonious than the other two trees).
~~~~~~~~~~
I remember reading the Odyssey in Moorhead's Eng8 class for our third term literature study, but I was unaware that it contained ekphrasis, and it's been so long now that I don't recall any specific instances of its use. The only candidate I can think of would be Homer's description of the veil that Odysseus' wife weaves, but even then, I am unsure of whether ekphrasis is used or not. I like how you likened ekphrasis to circus funhouse mirrors, and I think the point you raised about vantage points is really good; viewing the world/life/events/literature from as many vantage points is an important exercise that helps people understand other people better, I think.
Ah, you're lucky you don't have any lab exams. Although, two giant term papers and the Hkin project sound more stress-inducing than lab exams! I'm sure you'll do fine; you always do =)
AHHHHH!!! ONLY ONE WEEK OF CLASSES LEFT! AND THEN EXAMS! It's a rather odd feeling, because I'm so relived to be done the term, and so happy that the end is within reach, along with a much needed break in the winter weather (winter = favourite season of all time). However, it also signals the impending doom that is Final Exams, which are a major cause of stress. Let's hope our marks can survive them, yes?
On the subject of whether or not to postpone the blog, I feel that if you miss a post, don't freak out about it and don't worry about it. I'm going to try to post at least once a week still. Nothing big, like the discussion posts we've been recently been making; more short update posts, like this one.
Anyways, seeing as I'm talking to you on Skype right now, continuing this seems slightly less effective.
Good luck with your term papers, projects, and final exams!
Chat soon,
~Tim~
Monday, November 29, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Ekphrasis
ek•phra•sis
A graphic, often dramatic description of a visual work of art
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ekphrasis is a term often used in Classical texts when a work of art in the narrative is described in such a way that it comes alive in the mind of the reader.
In both Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid, the shields of the main protagonists are described in such great detail that the descriptions almost become stories within the larger poetic stories. What I like about the differences between these two shields is how they reflect the attitudes of the characters who hold them and the opinions of the authors who wrote about them.
Achilles' shield depicts harsh images of war, death and destruction. I won't post the actual section from the poem describing it because it's really long and I don't want to have to type it all out. So here's a picture instead:
You can't tell, but it's really itchy, I mean depressing.
His shield reflects the present, that is, the war of Troy that Achille's had begrudgedly joined. His war-slave, Chyseis, was taken from him by Agamemnon, for which he left the war and he only rejoined because his best friend, Patroklos, was killed by Hektor. The only reason Achilles' fights in revenge, so his view on war is grim and bleak, which his shield reflects perfectly.
Meanwhilst, Aeneas' shield contains a plethora of images about the glory of Rome.
Still hard to tell, but all the pictures have Romans cheering and being all victorious and stuff.
The Aeneid tells the story of Aeneas and his crew, the only Trojan survivors of the Trojan War. Aeneas is destined to be the founder of the Roman Empire, so when his is given his shield, it bears images of the future of Rome, depicting all of its major battles and accomplishments.
The big difference between the two is the focus of time. While Achilles' is preoccupied with the grim present, Aeneas looks to the bright future. While part of the reason for this is because Achilles knows he's going to die soon and Aeneas knows that he will survive and be victorious, I think the real reason these two warriors have such differing opinions is the circumstance of culture they find themselves in.
The Aeneid was commissioned to Virgil by Caesar to glorify Rome and justify its history as grounded in the mythologies that the Romans adapted from the Greeks. While the purpose of The Aeneid is essentially propaganda, there is still a lot of deep moral issues explored (although most are never actually resolved).
Meanwhile, Homer composed The Iliad to retell a story that all Greeks would have been very familiar with. Just like all oral poets of his time, Homer had to make the story his own to grab people's attention. His emphasis was not simply a chronology of the war, but a snapshot of a singular instance which reflected a much more human perspective of a war fought over very futile purposes. The poem isn't completely depressing or pessimistic, but rather it contains a wide spectrum of human emotion, from laughing to crying, from valiant
aristeias to passionate speeches about war and suffering.
A graphic, often dramatic description of a visual work of art
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ekphrasis is a term often used in Classical texts when a work of art in the narrative is described in such a way that it comes alive in the mind of the reader.
In both Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid, the shields of the main protagonists are described in such great detail that the descriptions almost become stories within the larger poetic stories. What I like about the differences between these two shields is how they reflect the attitudes of the characters who hold them and the opinions of the authors who wrote about them.
Achilles' shield depicts harsh images of war, death and destruction. I won't post the actual section from the poem describing it because it's really long and I don't want to have to type it all out. So here's a picture instead:
You can't tell, but it's really itchy, I mean depressing.
His shield reflects the present, that is, the war of Troy that Achille's had begrudgedly joined. His war-slave, Chyseis, was taken from him by Agamemnon, for which he left the war and he only rejoined because his best friend, Patroklos, was killed by Hektor. The only reason Achilles' fights in revenge, so his view on war is grim and bleak, which his shield reflects perfectly.
Meanwhilst, Aeneas' shield contains a plethora of images about the glory of Rome.
Still hard to tell, but all the pictures have Romans cheering and being all victorious and stuff.
The Aeneid tells the story of Aeneas and his crew, the only Trojan survivors of the Trojan War. Aeneas is destined to be the founder of the Roman Empire, so when his is given his shield, it bears images of the future of Rome, depicting all of its major battles and accomplishments.
The big difference between the two is the focus of time. While Achilles' is preoccupied with the grim present, Aeneas looks to the bright future. While part of the reason for this is because Achilles knows he's going to die soon and Aeneas knows that he will survive and be victorious, I think the real reason these two warriors have such differing opinions is the circumstance of culture they find themselves in.
The Aeneid was commissioned to Virgil by Caesar to glorify Rome and justify its history as grounded in the mythologies that the Romans adapted from the Greeks. While the purpose of The Aeneid is essentially propaganda, there is still a lot of deep moral issues explored (although most are never actually resolved).
Meanwhile, Homer composed The Iliad to retell a story that all Greeks would have been very familiar with. Just like all oral poets of his time, Homer had to make the story his own to grab people's attention. His emphasis was not simply a chronology of the war, but a snapshot of a singular instance which reflected a much more human perspective of a war fought over very futile purposes. The poem isn't completely depressing or pessimistic, but rather it contains a wide spectrum of human emotion, from laughing to crying, from valiant
aristeias to passionate speeches about war and suffering.
In a sense, ekphrasis is yet another funhouse mirror within the larger funhouse mirror that is literature and art. Obviously art can never be a mirror and perfectly reflect life and we the people who inhabit it, but in its distortion, it reveals more about us than a simple identical image ever could. Ekphrasis is another layer of this distortion, one that helps us to see the larger picture, not necessarily more clearly, but from a better vantage point.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Binomial Nomenclature and Taxonomy
bi•no•mi•al no•men•cla•ture (noun)
in biology, refers to the scientific systematic method of naming organisms
Origin: Latin (bi = two; nomial = having to do with names; nomenclature = method of naming)
tax•on•omy
the study of biological groupings. Also referred to as Phylogenetics (the genetics of phyla)
Origin: Greek (taxus = order/arrangement, nomos = law/science)
~~~~~~~~~~
Binomial Nomenclature is the systematic method used today for naming different organisms. It involves the grouping of individual animals, populations, and species into different groups. The study of biological groups is called Taxonomy, from the roots "taxa," which is the word used for any biological group, and "onomy" meaning "the study of." Because Taxonomy and Binomial Nomenclature deal with biological groupings, they are inherently tied to evolution and genetics: taxonomists attempt to divide organisms into taxa where the members of each taxa are more closely related to each other/their DNA match better than any others.
In taxonomy, there is a hierarchy of groupings. Currently, there is much debate over the larger grouping and finer details between species, but generally, seven levels of taxa are currently accepted (from highest/most general to lowest/most specific):
Kingdom [e.g. Kingdom Animalia (animals), Kingdom Viridiplantae (true plants), Kingdom Protista (protists), etc.]
Phylum (pl. Phyla) [e.g. Phylum Anthropoda (anthropods, like lobsters, grasshoppers, spiders, etc.), Phylum Mollusca (mollusks), Phylum Poriphera (sponges), Phylum Cnidaria (polyp/medusa aqualic creatures, like jellyfish and coral), etc]
Class [e.g. Class Bivalvia (bivalves, like oysters and clams), Class Gastropoda (slugs and snails), Class Aracnida (spiders and scorpions), Class Condrichthyes (sharks and other cartilaginous fish), Class Aves (birds), etc.]
Order [e.g. Order Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Order Nudibranchia (sea slugs - SOOO CUTE!), OrderMyxiniformes (hagfish), Order Rosales (roses and rose-like fruit bearing trees, like peaches and cherries), etc]
Family [e.g. Family Delphinidae (marine dolphins), Family Felidae (cats),Family Ramphastidae (Toucans), etc]
Genus [e.g. Genus Capra (goats), Genus Lamiaceae (mint), Genus Equus (horses), etc]
Species (self explanatory, also, never listed alone for reasons discussed below)
Even though these seven levels of taxa are commonly used, other groupings are also often used, such as Subphyla, Subclass, Superorder, etc. Also, higher classifications are sometimes used, but can are a controversial topic (to be discussed below); these include the groupings Domain, which goes above Kingdom (i.e. a Domain is made up of Kingdoms, just like how a Kingdom is made up of Phyla, a Phylum is made up of Classes, a Class is made up of Orders, etc).
Binomial Nomenclature was invented by Carl Linné. He was a Swedish scientist who was immensely interested in grouping things, and when he first created the system of binomial nomenclature, genetics been discovered, so he grouped animals and plants by shared characteristics. For example, he put birds together because they all had feathery wings and beaks. He was unaware that his classifications hinted at evolutionary lineages (his work was done before Darwin's work). Carl Linneaus loved latin, and so he assigned latin names to all of the species he classified; he was so obsessed that he changed his name to its latinized version: Carolus Linneaus.
Binomial Nomenclature uses an organism's Genus and Species classifications in identification; the whole name is italicized, and only the genus is capitalized. For example, if I wanted to talk about the Monarch Butterfly in a scientific context, to be specific so that other scientists know exactly what organism I'm talking about, I would refer to it as Danus plexippus. When using binomial nomenclature in writing, once a specific species has been identified, to save space and time, the entire thing can be shorted by using a capital initial for the genus. So, because I've already specified the exact species of butterfly I'm talking about here in a previous sen, I can now refer to the Monarch Butterfly as D. plexippus.
The study of taxonomy is a fascinating field, and is one where heated debates often occur. The most common areas of debate occur at the highest levels of classification, and the lowest levels of classification.
The high levels of classification are a controversial topic because they seek to divide very large groups of organisms, and evolutionarily, the changes that occurred to separate these groups happen so incredibly long ago that the order in which these changes occurs is almost indiscernible. The main topics of debate at the moment is between the Kingdoms. Some taxonomists wish there to be only two kingdoms (Plantae and Animalia), some four (Monera, Protista, Plantae, and Animalia), and some five (Monera, Protista, Animalia, Fungi, and Viridiplantae). The problem is not the large organisms, but the tiny, colonial and unicellular organisms. These organisms comprise of over 80% of the earth's biodiversity and biomass, and because they are so diverse and evolve so quickly, it is difficult to place these organisms into the classic Kingdom scheme of things; some that act like bacteria have plant-like properties, and some that should be plants exhibit animal-like traits.
The other area of heated debate is distinguishing species. To be able to group organisms into a species, one must first define what a species is, and how to determine whether something belongs in a species or another. The conventional definition is this: Organisms are part of the same species if they exhibit similar characteristics and are able to mate and reproduce. Sure, this sounds fine and dandy, but there are many bizarre examples that are quite difficult to divide.
For example, it has been discovered that in the arctic circle, five populations of birds that look very similar exist. Biologists attempted to classify these birds into species, but ran into a small problem. The populations were arranged in a circle around, and for the sake of this discussion, we'll call them A, B, C, D, and E. Population A can reproduce with B, B can reproduce with C, C can reproduce with D, and D can reproduce with E. Now, because they're arranged around the arctic circle, that means that population A is also beside population E. Now get this. Population E CANNOT reproduce with population A. So the question is: Where does one species start and one end? The individuals in population A are certainly different from those in E, but is sufficiently similar to B that they can reproduce.
Taxonomy is an interesting study, because it pushes the bounds of the human obsession with classifying things into nice, neat groups. Organisms and populations like the example above pose problems to our need to systematically divide everything. I argue that perhaps, some of these problems have no answers. We can try to change our definitions, but the truth is, there will always be things that we are unable to classify, unable to understand; things that do not have a nice, neat answer, and we must just perform the act of capitulation.
~~~~~~~~~~
I enjoyed reading your discussion on the thought of the Heavenly Realm, and I must say I don't have much to add to it; I remember having lengthy conversations with Moorhead over Christian and Semantic thought, and this was one of the topics that came up. I agree with you and him that Heaven is not a place above Earth where we "rise" to; rather, it is a New Earth that the Lord will bring, a rebirth, if you will. The picture of food made me hungry. Also, if you didn't know, it was a photo of grilled eggplant slices with fresh tomato and herb garnish. Just thought you should know it made my mouth water.
Also, I was intrigued by your notion that the Kingdom of God can be viewed as a system of ruling, and I had never thought of it that way before, but it totally makes sense!
~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry for not posting during the week last week; I was finishing up midterms (I had two) as well as assignments, so I've been pretty busy. This week and next week I have Lab Finals, and other shenanigans, so I'll also be pretty busy. I forgot how long it takes to write one of these! Granted, I wrote ALOT, so maybe I'll do a few short posts over the next few weeks that are less education oriented and more blog/life oriented.
I just got my OChem midterm back today that I wrote on thursday; the average was 45%. Not to brag, but I got 93%. Needless to say, I almost died from happiness. Organic Chemistry is quite fun (sometimes, when I'm not dying of stress =P) Also, one of my friends calls it "Org" instead of "O-Chem," and every time she says that, I have to pause for a moment and think "OH, she means 'Organic Chemistry', NOT 'Orgasm'."
Things have been pretty hectic; also, the temp plummeted on Friday and we got snow (as my panicked and hysterical texts have indicated... Again apologies for worrying you). My pashmina scarf is no longer sufficient for warding off the frigidity (I LOVE THAT WORD! FRIGIDITYFRIGIDITYFRIGIDITY!!!!); I broke out my wooly full on winter scarf today. SO LOOKING FORWARDS TO SCANDINAVIAN IGLOO CITY 2010! GOING TO BE SO REDIC!
On a separate note, I've finally finished breeding Feebas! This weekend I was successful in breeding a Feebas with sufficiently high IV's who also has the correct nature, so I EV trained him and prepped him for evolution, and now I can move on to breeding Roselia! I realize that this entire paragraph totally doesn't make sense, but all you need to know is that I'm working on raising/engineering (because honestly, high-level play totally requires you to engineer the best pokemon) my new team for pokemon because I'm finally getting a 4th Gen game this Christmas! I'm working on making it the most BA team that I can =)
Aw Clay, your flattery is very... well... flattering. Thank you for never letting me forget that I'm capable of doing good things. It's so easy to forget sometimes.
Lol Clay your strange TWU-learned descriptive phrases make me lol. So redic. LOL BURNT POPCORN? Oh Caly, your antics make me lol in a good way. Clay you need to learn how to cook properly. Men who cook are just that much more attractive, just saying. I mean, imagine how awesome it would be to make Belgian Waffles! (speaking of which... OMG BELGIAN WAFFLES!)
I should probably be studying my vocab and text for my essay in French on Huis Clos tomorrow, but I just can't be bothered (which reminds me: I will be posting about Huis Clos and Sartrien Existentialism some time in the future). It's French. Frankly, at this point, I've given up. Yes, I've learned some new things and I've managed to bring back some semblance of being able to understand French, but I'm not getting as much out of this course as I hoped to. I don't get to practice my writing and speaking enough, and although it's fun, I don't have the time or motivation to practice it in my spare time. It's good, but not the same without Mme Tsui, so I'm dropping the French course I signed up for next term and I'm taking another arts course. Is this influenced by the fact that my French mark is lowering my average? Yes, a bit. I need my average to be as high as possible in order to even have a chance at getting into Honours Physiology, so that's playing a big role, but I'm also not as happy as I'd like to be in the class, and it's not as good as I'd hoped, so there's also good reason on that end too. I hope to return to French when I have the time, patience, and less need for a high GPA. After that, it's on to Mandarin! That will be quite the adventure... haha XD
Anyways, wishing you all the very best for the last few weeks of school, and the impending finals.
Chat soon!
~Tim~
PS - Sorry for not including a picture for the whole arctiv birds thing; I tried to upload one but blogger is being a ridiculous idiot.
in biology, refers to the scientific systematic method of naming organisms
Origin: Latin (bi = two; nomial = having to do with names; nomenclature = method of naming)
tax•on•omy
the study of biological groupings. Also referred to as Phylogenetics (the genetics of phyla)
Origin: Greek (taxus = order/arrangement, nomos = law/science)
~~~~~~~~~~
Binomial Nomenclature is the systematic method used today for naming different organisms. It involves the grouping of individual animals, populations, and species into different groups. The study of biological groups is called Taxonomy, from the roots "taxa," which is the word used for any biological group, and "onomy" meaning "the study of." Because Taxonomy and Binomial Nomenclature deal with biological groupings, they are inherently tied to evolution and genetics: taxonomists attempt to divide organisms into taxa where the members of each taxa are more closely related to each other/their DNA match better than any others.
In taxonomy, there is a hierarchy of groupings. Currently, there is much debate over the larger grouping and finer details between species, but generally, seven levels of taxa are currently accepted (from highest/most general to lowest/most specific):
Kingdom [e.g. Kingdom Animalia (animals), Kingdom Viridiplantae (true plants), Kingdom Protista (protists), etc.]
Phylum (pl. Phyla) [e.g. Phylum Anthropoda (anthropods, like lobsters, grasshoppers, spiders, etc.), Phylum Mollusca (mollusks), Phylum Poriphera (sponges), Phylum Cnidaria (polyp/medusa aqualic creatures, like jellyfish and coral), etc]
Class [e.g. Class Bivalvia (bivalves, like oysters and clams), Class Gastropoda (slugs and snails), Class Aracnida (spiders and scorpions), Class Condrichthyes (sharks and other cartilaginous fish), Class Aves (birds), etc.]
Order [e.g. Order Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Order Nudibranchia (sea slugs - SOOO CUTE!), OrderMyxiniformes (hagfish), Order Rosales (roses and rose-like fruit bearing trees, like peaches and cherries), etc]
Family [e.g. Family Delphinidae (marine dolphins), Family Felidae (cats),Family Ramphastidae (Toucans), etc]
Genus [e.g. Genus Capra (goats), Genus Lamiaceae (mint), Genus Equus (horses), etc]
Species (self explanatory, also, never listed alone for reasons discussed below)
 |
| NUDIBRANCHS! SO CUTE! |
Even though these seven levels of taxa are commonly used, other groupings are also often used, such as Subphyla, Subclass, Superorder, etc. Also, higher classifications are sometimes used, but can are a controversial topic (to be discussed below); these include the groupings Domain, which goes above Kingdom (i.e. a Domain is made up of Kingdoms, just like how a Kingdom is made up of Phyla, a Phylum is made up of Classes, a Class is made up of Orders, etc).
Binomial Nomenclature was invented by Carl Linné. He was a Swedish scientist who was immensely interested in grouping things, and when he first created the system of binomial nomenclature, genetics been discovered, so he grouped animals and plants by shared characteristics. For example, he put birds together because they all had feathery wings and beaks. He was unaware that his classifications hinted at evolutionary lineages (his work was done before Darwin's work). Carl Linneaus loved latin, and so he assigned latin names to all of the species he classified; he was so obsessed that he changed his name to its latinized version: Carolus Linneaus.
 |
| SO SWEDISH! SO LATIN-Y! |
Binomial Nomenclature uses an organism's Genus and Species classifications in identification; the whole name is italicized, and only the genus is capitalized. For example, if I wanted to talk about the Monarch Butterfly in a scientific context, to be specific so that other scientists know exactly what organism I'm talking about, I would refer to it as Danus plexippus. When using binomial nomenclature in writing, once a specific species has been identified, to save space and time, the entire thing can be shorted by using a capital initial for the genus. So, because I've already specified the exact species of butterfly I'm talking about here in a previous sen, I can now refer to the Monarch Butterfly as D. plexippus.
The study of taxonomy is a fascinating field, and is one where heated debates often occur. The most common areas of debate occur at the highest levels of classification, and the lowest levels of classification.
The high levels of classification are a controversial topic because they seek to divide very large groups of organisms, and evolutionarily, the changes that occurred to separate these groups happen so incredibly long ago that the order in which these changes occurs is almost indiscernible. The main topics of debate at the moment is between the Kingdoms. Some taxonomists wish there to be only two kingdoms (Plantae and Animalia), some four (Monera, Protista, Plantae, and Animalia), and some five (Monera, Protista, Animalia, Fungi, and Viridiplantae). The problem is not the large organisms, but the tiny, colonial and unicellular organisms. These organisms comprise of over 80% of the earth's biodiversity and biomass, and because they are so diverse and evolve so quickly, it is difficult to place these organisms into the classic Kingdom scheme of things; some that act like bacteria have plant-like properties, and some that should be plants exhibit animal-like traits.
The other area of heated debate is distinguishing species. To be able to group organisms into a species, one must first define what a species is, and how to determine whether something belongs in a species or another. The conventional definition is this: Organisms are part of the same species if they exhibit similar characteristics and are able to mate and reproduce. Sure, this sounds fine and dandy, but there are many bizarre examples that are quite difficult to divide.
For example, it has been discovered that in the arctic circle, five populations of birds that look very similar exist. Biologists attempted to classify these birds into species, but ran into a small problem. The populations were arranged in a circle around, and for the sake of this discussion, we'll call them A, B, C, D, and E. Population A can reproduce with B, B can reproduce with C, C can reproduce with D, and D can reproduce with E. Now, because they're arranged around the arctic circle, that means that population A is also beside population E. Now get this. Population E CANNOT reproduce with population A. So the question is: Where does one species start and one end? The individuals in population A are certainly different from those in E, but is sufficiently similar to B that they can reproduce.
Taxonomy is an interesting study, because it pushes the bounds of the human obsession with classifying things into nice, neat groups. Organisms and populations like the example above pose problems to our need to systematically divide everything. I argue that perhaps, some of these problems have no answers. We can try to change our definitions, but the truth is, there will always be things that we are unable to classify, unable to understand; things that do not have a nice, neat answer, and we must just perform the act of capitulation.
~~~~~~~~~~
I enjoyed reading your discussion on the thought of the Heavenly Realm, and I must say I don't have much to add to it; I remember having lengthy conversations with Moorhead over Christian and Semantic thought, and this was one of the topics that came up. I agree with you and him that Heaven is not a place above Earth where we "rise" to; rather, it is a New Earth that the Lord will bring, a rebirth, if you will. The picture of food made me hungry. Also, if you didn't know, it was a photo of grilled eggplant slices with fresh tomato and herb garnish. Just thought you should know it made my mouth water.
Also, I was intrigued by your notion that the Kingdom of God can be viewed as a system of ruling, and I had never thought of it that way before, but it totally makes sense!
~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry for not posting during the week last week; I was finishing up midterms (I had two) as well as assignments, so I've been pretty busy. This week and next week I have Lab Finals, and other shenanigans, so I'll also be pretty busy. I forgot how long it takes to write one of these! Granted, I wrote ALOT, so maybe I'll do a few short posts over the next few weeks that are less education oriented and more blog/life oriented.
I just got my OChem midterm back today that I wrote on thursday; the average was 45%. Not to brag, but I got 93%. Needless to say, I almost died from happiness. Organic Chemistry is quite fun (sometimes, when I'm not dying of stress =P) Also, one of my friends calls it "Org" instead of "O-Chem," and every time she says that, I have to pause for a moment and think "OH, she means 'Organic Chemistry', NOT 'Orgasm'."
Things have been pretty hectic; also, the temp plummeted on Friday and we got snow (as my panicked and hysterical texts have indicated... Again apologies for worrying you). My pashmina scarf is no longer sufficient for warding off the frigidity (I LOVE THAT WORD! FRIGIDITYFRIGIDITYFRIGIDITY!!!!); I broke out my wooly full on winter scarf today. SO LOOKING FORWARDS TO SCANDINAVIAN IGLOO CITY 2010! GOING TO BE SO REDIC!
On a separate note, I've finally finished breeding Feebas! This weekend I was successful in breeding a Feebas with sufficiently high IV's who also has the correct nature, so I EV trained him and prepped him for evolution, and now I can move on to breeding Roselia! I realize that this entire paragraph totally doesn't make sense, but all you need to know is that I'm working on raising/engineering (because honestly, high-level play totally requires you to engineer the best pokemon) my new team for pokemon because I'm finally getting a 4th Gen game this Christmas! I'm working on making it the most BA team that I can =)
Aw Clay, your flattery is very... well... flattering. Thank you for never letting me forget that I'm capable of doing good things. It's so easy to forget sometimes.
Lol Clay your strange TWU-learned descriptive phrases make me lol. So redic. LOL BURNT POPCORN? Oh Caly, your antics make me lol in a good way. Clay you need to learn how to cook properly. Men who cook are just that much more attractive, just saying. I mean, imagine how awesome it would be to make Belgian Waffles! (speaking of which... OMG BELGIAN WAFFLES!)
I should probably be studying my vocab and text for my essay in French on Huis Clos tomorrow, but I just can't be bothered (which reminds me: I will be posting about Huis Clos and Sartrien Existentialism some time in the future). It's French. Frankly, at this point, I've given up. Yes, I've learned some new things and I've managed to bring back some semblance of being able to understand French, but I'm not getting as much out of this course as I hoped to. I don't get to practice my writing and speaking enough, and although it's fun, I don't have the time or motivation to practice it in my spare time. It's good, but not the same without Mme Tsui, so I'm dropping the French course I signed up for next term and I'm taking another arts course. Is this influenced by the fact that my French mark is lowering my average? Yes, a bit. I need my average to be as high as possible in order to even have a chance at getting into Honours Physiology, so that's playing a big role, but I'm also not as happy as I'd like to be in the class, and it's not as good as I'd hoped, so there's also good reason on that end too. I hope to return to French when I have the time, patience, and less need for a high GPA. After that, it's on to Mandarin! That will be quite the adventure... haha XD
Anyways, wishing you all the very best for the last few weeks of school, and the impending finals.
Chat soon!
~Tim~
PS - Sorry for not including a picture for the whole arctiv birds thing; I tried to upload one but blogger is being a ridiculous idiot.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Capitulation
ca•pit•u•la•tion (noun)
the action of surrendering or ceasing to resist an opponent or demand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I chose this word because of its eery similarity to "recapitulation", a word which here means restating something for the purposes of summation.
It's also a biology term implying the repetition of an evolutionary process during growth (Yay, I can do biology stuff too!).
So what is the significance? I have no idea. It just thought it was funny.
I could say that all your talk about soaponification will make me either ask you to recapitulate what your talking about, or I will have to capitulate trying to follow you, but I still enjoy following what I can and I will try harder next time!
Anyway, I said I was going to talk about Heaven eventually, so here it is.
Oh yes. If ever there was a subject that will provoke discussion between us, this is it!
(On a side note, I just want to remark that I like how bringing up religion makes the both of us want to talk more to each other, whereas usually it's the exact opposite with pretty much everybody else. Yay!)
I just want to clarify first off that this post is a combination of both what I believe and what I have learned while studying here at TWU. Not that the two are separate, but I want to ensure that I give credit where credit is due and say that a lot of this I didn't think of myself or willingly accept as soon as I learned it. Theses ideas of Heaven and Earth came from a lot of different classes, discussion and time in prayer and thought.
In that way, these thoughts are not my own, but rather an accepted scholarly interpretation of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. But I stand by them and I will defend these beliefs, which only through God's revelation I could ever understand and only through my own wrestling I have come to believe.
Also, I in no way completely grasp the complexities of Heaven (and neither will any human being on Earth ever be fully able to) and the revelation of the Kingdom of God is something I a constantly learning new things about every day.
Sorry about the length of that, but I just wanted to put that up front first. OK here we go:
The other day you sent posted this comic, which I though was brilliant:
I'll get back to it very soon, but first I want to talk about St. Augustine.
I know you read Confessions, and I'm sorry I can't reference it because I haven't read it. But I will talk about his City of God, in which St. Augustine calls Christians "dual-citizens". By this, he means that we as Christians are residents of two separate cities: heaven and earth.
The city on earth, the city of man, is defined by the fallen nature of humanity. The people are greedy, self-centered and often cruel. These people, I mean, we, are always in pursuit of finding the best way of living, which we will never perfectly achieve. It is imperfect and temporal.
The city of heaven, that is, the city of God, is defined by the perfection of God and true justice through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. This is the perfect city run by the perfect King, the Trinity of Father, Son and Spirit. It is eternal and defined by divine love.
These cities were completely separated because of the fall of man and the entrance of sin into the city of man. There was a wall between the two cities, but Jesus, in talking on the image of man (in the reverse of the way He made us to bear His image), performed the ultimate act of humility and broke the wall between the two cities.
This is where the Venn Diagram comes in. If you think of the blue quadrant as Earth and the yellow as Heaven, it shows how Jesus brought His Kingdom into our own. The two are now connected, but not the same. When Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God, he says it is coming but that is not here yet. That is, that Jesus brought Heaven to us, but not fully. In his death and resurrection, Jesus redeemed us of our sinful ways and gave us the first appetizer of the greatest feast in existence.
In theology, we refer to this as the "Already, Not Yet" mentality. Heaven is here, but not fully. We are forgiven of our sins, but that doesn't mean we are now blameless or sinless. We are still in a fallen world, and as citizens of that world, we still have an obligation to it.
I think this is where most people start misinterpreting how the Kingdom of God works. Like you said, many people become so preoccupied about how Heaven is here that forget that it is not fully here and we still have to wait for Christ to return. We still need to live our lives for Christ and spread the news of His Kingdom throughout the world while keeping our own lives an imitation if His.
Like Augustine noted, as dual citizens, we need to live in light of both realms. Paul notes in Romans 13 that we must still submit to the authority of this world, seeing as we are still living in it. The only time we should not follow the rules put on by this world is when those conflict with the reign of the Kingdom of God, which has the final say over all the world and as Christians, it is where we owe our allegiance. So like you said, we can't lose sight of our obligations to both cities we reside in.
The other point where most people get mixed up is what the Kingdom of God actually is. The biggest misconception we have is thinking the Kingdom of God is a location that we have to go to.
The idea that we have to "go up" to get to heaven, although an interesting way of looking at Heaven, is Biblically false. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we have to leave Earth in order to get to God's Kingdom. Rather, because of the power of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, Heaven has been brought down to us.
Usually couple with the idea of us having to ascend to Heaven comes the notion that this world is not meant for us. The notion that we will leave Earth behind and spend the rest of our days in the clouds, away from grass, trees and ocean is also false, a dualistic idea first introduced by the gnostics (which Moorhead talked about quite a bit I think)
God gave us this world and said it is good. It is only because of sin that God's creation has become fallen. So, in the same way that God will redeem humanity, so too will creation be renewed. The book of Revelation talks about a New Heaven and a New Earth, together in God's Kingdom.
God's Kingdom, which I apologize I haven't defined up until this point, is not a place and it's not a time. God's Kingdom, like God, exists outside of time and space. Rather, God's Kingdom is a system.
It's is God's reign over all of creation that manifests itself by divine revelation through his people.
The church, as God's people, is the means for this Kingdom to be shown to all people in the world. We are bearers of the great message, the gospel, that God reigns over all people, whom he loves. This rule then, is shown through acts of kindness, charity and love.
Bottom line:
This isn't heaven.
This is.
And this.
And even this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope everything is going well at UBC and I can't wait to make Scandinavian Igloos again!
Oh My Graphics, did you see the snow today?! It was so awesome!!! I can't wait for winter break, it'll simultaneously be the bomb and the cat's pajamas!
Thanks again for the birthday message! Thanks so much Tim! I really appreciate how much effort you put into our friendship as well as how much enthusiasm you put into it, just as you put enthusiasm into everything you care deeply about. In that way, I can tell how much you really care. That's why I love every time you flail or shout expressively, because it shows that no matter how silly or preposterous the thing is that we're doing, you care about it and can't help showing it. Thanks so much Tim! You NFTBA as I know you won't!!!
Also, you may see some "crazy" photos on facebook in which I am tagged as both burnt popcorn and a firetruck. The implications of these photos do lead to a startling truth in which I inadvertently set off the fire alarm in my building by trying to make popcorn too close to the smoke detector.
The worst part is that my dorm had just got back from winning a game of football and everyone was taking showers when the alarm went off. So at least three people from my dorm were standing outside in the rain in towels all wondering aloud, "I wonder who set it off this time?" This is the part where Caly slunk away silently.
Another proud moment for the minister of BS.
Anyway, less than a month of school left! See you real real soon!!!
the action of surrendering or ceasing to resist an opponent or demand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I chose this word because of its eery similarity to "recapitulation", a word which here means restating something for the purposes of summation.
It's also a biology term implying the repetition of an evolutionary process during growth (Yay, I can do biology stuff too!).
So what is the significance? I have no idea. It just thought it was funny.
I could say that all your talk about soaponification will make me either ask you to recapitulate what your talking about, or I will have to capitulate trying to follow you, but I still enjoy following what I can and I will try harder next time!
Anyway, I said I was going to talk about Heaven eventually, so here it is.
Oh yes. If ever there was a subject that will provoke discussion between us, this is it!
(On a side note, I just want to remark that I like how bringing up religion makes the both of us want to talk more to each other, whereas usually it's the exact opposite with pretty much everybody else. Yay!)
I just want to clarify first off that this post is a combination of both what I believe and what I have learned while studying here at TWU. Not that the two are separate, but I want to ensure that I give credit where credit is due and say that a lot of this I didn't think of myself or willingly accept as soon as I learned it. Theses ideas of Heaven and Earth came from a lot of different classes, discussion and time in prayer and thought.
In that way, these thoughts are not my own, but rather an accepted scholarly interpretation of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. But I stand by them and I will defend these beliefs, which only through God's revelation I could ever understand and only through my own wrestling I have come to believe.
Also, I in no way completely grasp the complexities of Heaven (and neither will any human being on Earth ever be fully able to) and the revelation of the Kingdom of God is something I a constantly learning new things about every day.
Sorry about the length of that, but I just wanted to put that up front first. OK here we go:
The other day you sent posted this comic, which I though was brilliant:
I'll get back to it very soon, but first I want to talk about St. Augustine.
I know you read Confessions, and I'm sorry I can't reference it because I haven't read it. But I will talk about his City of God, in which St. Augustine calls Christians "dual-citizens". By this, he means that we as Christians are residents of two separate cities: heaven and earth.
The city on earth, the city of man, is defined by the fallen nature of humanity. The people are greedy, self-centered and often cruel. These people, I mean, we, are always in pursuit of finding the best way of living, which we will never perfectly achieve. It is imperfect and temporal.
The city of heaven, that is, the city of God, is defined by the perfection of God and true justice through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. This is the perfect city run by the perfect King, the Trinity of Father, Son and Spirit. It is eternal and defined by divine love.
These cities were completely separated because of the fall of man and the entrance of sin into the city of man. There was a wall between the two cities, but Jesus, in talking on the image of man (in the reverse of the way He made us to bear His image), performed the ultimate act of humility and broke the wall between the two cities.
This is where the Venn Diagram comes in. If you think of the blue quadrant as Earth and the yellow as Heaven, it shows how Jesus brought His Kingdom into our own. The two are now connected, but not the same. When Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God, he says it is coming but that is not here yet. That is, that Jesus brought Heaven to us, but not fully. In his death and resurrection, Jesus redeemed us of our sinful ways and gave us the first appetizer of the greatest feast in existence.
In theology, we refer to this as the "Already, Not Yet" mentality. Heaven is here, but not fully. We are forgiven of our sins, but that doesn't mean we are now blameless or sinless. We are still in a fallen world, and as citizens of that world, we still have an obligation to it.
I think this is where most people start misinterpreting how the Kingdom of God works. Like you said, many people become so preoccupied about how Heaven is here that forget that it is not fully here and we still have to wait for Christ to return. We still need to live our lives for Christ and spread the news of His Kingdom throughout the world while keeping our own lives an imitation if His.
Like Augustine noted, as dual citizens, we need to live in light of both realms. Paul notes in Romans 13 that we must still submit to the authority of this world, seeing as we are still living in it. The only time we should not follow the rules put on by this world is when those conflict with the reign of the Kingdom of God, which has the final say over all the world and as Christians, it is where we owe our allegiance. So like you said, we can't lose sight of our obligations to both cities we reside in.
The other point where most people get mixed up is what the Kingdom of God actually is. The biggest misconception we have is thinking the Kingdom of God is a location that we have to go to.
The idea that we have to "go up" to get to heaven, although an interesting way of looking at Heaven, is Biblically false. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we have to leave Earth in order to get to God's Kingdom. Rather, because of the power of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, Heaven has been brought down to us.
Usually couple with the idea of us having to ascend to Heaven comes the notion that this world is not meant for us. The notion that we will leave Earth behind and spend the rest of our days in the clouds, away from grass, trees and ocean is also false, a dualistic idea first introduced by the gnostics (which Moorhead talked about quite a bit I think)
God gave us this world and said it is good. It is only because of sin that God's creation has become fallen. So, in the same way that God will redeem humanity, so too will creation be renewed. The book of Revelation talks about a New Heaven and a New Earth, together in God's Kingdom.
God's Kingdom, which I apologize I haven't defined up until this point, is not a place and it's not a time. God's Kingdom, like God, exists outside of time and space. Rather, God's Kingdom is a system.
It's is God's reign over all of creation that manifests itself by divine revelation through his people.
The church, as God's people, is the means for this Kingdom to be shown to all people in the world. We are bearers of the great message, the gospel, that God reigns over all people, whom he loves. This rule then, is shown through acts of kindness, charity and love.
Bottom line:
This isn't heaven.
This is.
And this.
And even this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope everything is going well at UBC and I can't wait to make Scandinavian Igloos again!
Oh My Graphics, did you see the snow today?! It was so awesome!!! I can't wait for winter break, it'll simultaneously be the bomb and the cat's pajamas!
Thanks again for the birthday message! Thanks so much Tim! I really appreciate how much effort you put into our friendship as well as how much enthusiasm you put into it, just as you put enthusiasm into everything you care deeply about. In that way, I can tell how much you really care. That's why I love every time you flail or shout expressively, because it shows that no matter how silly or preposterous the thing is that we're doing, you care about it and can't help showing it. Thanks so much Tim! You NFTBA as I know you won't!!!
Also, you may see some "crazy" photos on facebook in which I am tagged as both burnt popcorn and a firetruck. The implications of these photos do lead to a startling truth in which I inadvertently set off the fire alarm in my building by trying to make popcorn too close to the smoke detector.
The worst part is that my dorm had just got back from winning a game of football and everyone was taking showers when the alarm went off. So at least three people from my dorm were standing outside in the rain in towels all wondering aloud, "I wonder who set it off this time?" This is the part where Caly slunk away silently.
Another proud moment for the minister of BS.
Anyway, less than a month of school left! See you real real soon!!!
-Clayton
Friday, November 12, 2010
Soaponification
soap•on•i•fi•ca•tion (noun)
the chemical term for the process by which soaps are created from lipids via hydrolysis under basic/alkaline conditions
~~~~~~~~~~
SO, as promised, here are the answers to the ester exercise!
I rather like doing these exercises; it makes you think about what I'm trying to teach you. Perhaps you'll do better on the next one. Also: don't fret if you can't get it; this stuff is from second year chemistry, and if memory serves, the last chemistry class you took was in gr. 11.
In response to your earlier posts:
1) Haha, yes, quite true, Machiavelli will never be the same between the two of us =P You shouldn't be the one apologizing for what you posted about Machavellians; if I'm not allowed to apologize for the daunting text, you aren't allowed to apologize either! =P Also: I'm glad that what I said was understandable/not disconcerning to you any longer; I was worried (but then again, when am I not worried? LOL)
2) I was not aware that such a thing as a Catholic Catechism existed, although, from what you've told me, I can't say that I agree with its function in the Catholic church. To me, it sounds like a way of getting new followers to memorize someone else's definition of faith, which, to me, is a very, very bad thing. As I've said many times in the past, I believe that each person should define for themselves their own beliefs and their own faith, and in that way each person can be absolutely sure in their beliefs and the reasons for them. I remember you talking about this saint several times before, although I had not completely understood what you meant, but now I do (I believe he came up in our discussion about wanting to die for a noble cause; I think I may have, as always, explained myself incorrectly; what I wanted to say was that because all of us are going to die, if I could choose my mode of death, I would rather die protecting someone I care for or values that I believe. It doesn't mean that I'm going to be seeking a death like that, and it doesn't mean that I'll be happy to die peacefully in my sleep. This is an interesting topic that was raised in the book I recommended to you in September. I hope you have a chance to read it sometime this winter/summer break; I'd love to hear what you think of it.)
Also: No, I was not raised in a Catholic household, but the school my mom attended when she was a girl in Malasia was an English Catholic school; that's why she can't speak Mando or Canto as well as my dad can. I have a feeling that some of the things about faith they taught her didn't quite sit well with her; I can only imagine that it's the reason she's not Catholic anymore (I think you'd call my family Protestant? I've never actually been sure what to call it; we attend an Evangelist church, but I'm not sure if Evangelist is an actual distinct church? All these denominations confuse me)
3) Shakespeare is fantastic! I miss studying his stuff! Lol this reminds me: when I was in 9th grade and we were just starting Shakespeare, I remember telling my dad how hard it was to understand it, and he said "You think Shakespeare is hard to understand? His stuff is only just over 400 years old! When I was in school (my father was educated in Mandarin; English is his second/thrird language: he speaks Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien/Teochu, and English) I had to read texts that were over a thousand years old! The meanings of the characters have changed so much that it's almost like learning a new language!" I've always dreamed of studying texts like that. Anyways, Shakespeare sounds so much fun to study! Which is the piece your anthology is missing? I bought a second-hand collection of all of his tragedies a few years ago; maybe I have the one you need?
~~~~~~~~~~
Haha I wasn't asking you to do the meme, I just thought it was fun. I like doing those sort of personal memes every once in a while; it gets me to think about some things that I don't usually think about every day, and its fun to go back and read my answers after a few years to see how I've changed.
SO.
TODAY IS A SPECIAL DAY.
IT'S YOUR BIRTHDAY! HAPPY BIRTHDAY CLAY!!!!! =DDD
YOU ARE AN AMAZINGLY AWESOME FANTASTIC FRIEND AND A GREAT INSPIRATION AND A MARVELOUS GENTLEMAN AND A STUPENDOUS HUMAN BEING! YOU HAVE SUCH A GREAT SENSE OF SARCASM AND HUMOUR AND YOU ARE ALWAYS FULL OF WISDOM AND YOU ARE SUCH A SOURCE OF EXPLOSIVE WONDERFULNESS! THANK YOU FOR BEING YOU!!! I WISH YOU ALL THE VERY BEST IN THE NEXT YEAR OF YOUR LIFE: MAY JOY NEVER LEAVE YOU; MAY YOUR DAYS BE FILLED WITH LAUGHTER AND LOVE; MAY YOUR WEAPONS COME IN PINK DIGI-CAMO WITH THE BOLT ACTION ATTACHED; MAY YOU NFTBA; MAY YOUR JOKES NEVER LOOSE THEIR WIT.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY CLAY!!!
Chat soon,
with love,
~Tim~
the chemical term for the process by which soaps are created from lipids via hydrolysis under basic/alkaline conditions
~~~~~~~~~~
SO, as promised, here are the answers to the ester exercise!
 |
| Recall that an ester is a functional group whose main carbon is bonded to three thing: 1) double bonded to an oxygen, 2) single bonded to a different oxygen with another organic group attached to that, and 3) another carbon group. |
In response to your earlier posts:
1) Haha, yes, quite true, Machiavelli will never be the same between the two of us =P You shouldn't be the one apologizing for what you posted about Machavellians; if I'm not allowed to apologize for the daunting text, you aren't allowed to apologize either! =P Also: I'm glad that what I said was understandable/not disconcerning to you any longer; I was worried (but then again, when am I not worried? LOL)
2) I was not aware that such a thing as a Catholic Catechism existed, although, from what you've told me, I can't say that I agree with its function in the Catholic church. To me, it sounds like a way of getting new followers to memorize someone else's definition of faith, which, to me, is a very, very bad thing. As I've said many times in the past, I believe that each person should define for themselves their own beliefs and their own faith, and in that way each person can be absolutely sure in their beliefs and the reasons for them. I remember you talking about this saint several times before, although I had not completely understood what you meant, but now I do (I believe he came up in our discussion about wanting to die for a noble cause; I think I may have, as always, explained myself incorrectly; what I wanted to say was that because all of us are going to die, if I could choose my mode of death, I would rather die protecting someone I care for or values that I believe. It doesn't mean that I'm going to be seeking a death like that, and it doesn't mean that I'll be happy to die peacefully in my sleep. This is an interesting topic that was raised in the book I recommended to you in September. I hope you have a chance to read it sometime this winter/summer break; I'd love to hear what you think of it.)
Also: No, I was not raised in a Catholic household, but the school my mom attended when she was a girl in Malasia was an English Catholic school; that's why she can't speak Mando or Canto as well as my dad can. I have a feeling that some of the things about faith they taught her didn't quite sit well with her; I can only imagine that it's the reason she's not Catholic anymore (I think you'd call my family Protestant? I've never actually been sure what to call it; we attend an Evangelist church, but I'm not sure if Evangelist is an actual distinct church? All these denominations confuse me)
3) Shakespeare is fantastic! I miss studying his stuff! Lol this reminds me: when I was in 9th grade and we were just starting Shakespeare, I remember telling my dad how hard it was to understand it, and he said "You think Shakespeare is hard to understand? His stuff is only just over 400 years old! When I was in school (my father was educated in Mandarin; English is his second/thrird language: he speaks Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien/Teochu, and English) I had to read texts that were over a thousand years old! The meanings of the characters have changed so much that it's almost like learning a new language!" I've always dreamed of studying texts like that. Anyways, Shakespeare sounds so much fun to study! Which is the piece your anthology is missing? I bought a second-hand collection of all of his tragedies a few years ago; maybe I have the one you need?
~~~~~~~~~~
Haha I wasn't asking you to do the meme, I just thought it was fun. I like doing those sort of personal memes every once in a while; it gets me to think about some things that I don't usually think about every day, and its fun to go back and read my answers after a few years to see how I've changed.
SO.
TODAY IS A SPECIAL DAY.
IT'S YOUR BIRTHDAY! HAPPY BIRTHDAY CLAY!!!!! =DDD
 |
| HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Is it a cake? Is it a present? BOTH! INSIDE IS A BABY! Buy yourself a nice new house =) |
YOU ARE AN AMAZINGLY AWESOME FANTASTIC FRIEND AND A GREAT INSPIRATION AND A MARVELOUS GENTLEMAN AND A STUPENDOUS HUMAN BEING! YOU HAVE SUCH A GREAT SENSE OF SARCASM AND HUMOUR AND YOU ARE ALWAYS FULL OF WISDOM AND YOU ARE SUCH A SOURCE OF EXPLOSIVE WONDERFULNESS! THANK YOU FOR BEING YOU!!! I WISH YOU ALL THE VERY BEST IN THE NEXT YEAR OF YOUR LIFE: MAY JOY NEVER LEAVE YOU; MAY YOUR DAYS BE FILLED WITH LAUGHTER AND LOVE; MAY YOUR WEAPONS COME IN PINK DIGI-CAMO WITH THE BOLT ACTION ATTACHED; MAY YOU NFTBA; MAY YOUR JOKES NEVER LOOSE THEIR WIT.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY CLAY!!!
Chat soon,
with love,
~Tim~
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Shakespearean
shake•spear•e•an (noun and adjective)
of or relating to William Shakespeare, either of his own writing or in imitation of his style.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So two posts in a row! Woo! This one will be less serious than Catechism I hope.
OK, I know we both know this word and we're both pretty familiar with this guy, but I want to mention it for a few reasons:
1) He's a cool dude who wrote comedies, tragedies and histories with the foremost intent of entertaining the viewers, all the while infusing his works with moral issues, questions and dilemmas. He asked the questions others didn't dare to ask (e.g. Is it better to just suffer the crap that life throws at us or to try and fight a futile battle against life in which the end result will be death?), but he did this while either keeping the audience on the edge of their seats or rolling in the aisles laughing.
I love this because so many writers get caught up with using stories to instruct and inform (which is very important if not completely necessary for all literature to do this), but they lose sight of keeping their tales entertaining.
We need to be able to laugh, cry and feel emotions because of literature, not just look for theme statements and what the author wants a work to "mean".
2) I also love Shakespeare because of the effect he had on words of the English language. He not only was crucial to the formation of the language we speak today, influencing modern English in its conception by providing it with a plethora of words we still use (such as accursed, bedroom, epileptic, and my personal favorite: rant), but he was so important that he had a word made about him.
A very Shakespearean photo n'est pas?
Ok, well so does Justin Bieber, but this word has more than one meaning!
It can refer to a style of poetry, a school of academic thought, a mode of speaking and even an entire genre. (Take that Biebbutt! Your brain is as dry as the remainder biscuit after a voyage!)
Shakespeare wins again!
=> Side note, I totally wasn't expecting sonneteer to be an actual word! I just discovered a word while trying to make one up. Zounds! I don't even know what to think about that. . .
OK, so obviously I'm kind of excited. But here's the main reason:
I just won an anthology of Shakespeare at an English Pizza Party!
It's got nearly every play, his most famous epic poems and the entirety of his sonnet collection! Score!
(The irony is in the fact that it contains every play I'm studying except the one the professor is most excited about. Aye, there's the rub!)
Yeah, I'm a nerd, I know. Just for me, Shakespeare is the coolest part of being an English Major. He's like the Mr. T or the Totoro of the English Department. He's big, trustworthy, but above all, awesome.
And, of course, my best experience of Shakespeare to date (and probably forever) is still Josh reading Othello in spare.
The Hankerchief!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have a great weekend again Tim. I hope you had a good day off and I hope you enjoyed the fact that I'm trying to set the record for most Shakespearean photos in one post.
See ya!
of or relating to William Shakespeare, either of his own writing or in imitation of his style.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So two posts in a row! Woo! This one will be less serious than Catechism I hope.
OK, I know we both know this word and we're both pretty familiar with this guy, but I want to mention it for a few reasons:
1) He's a cool dude who wrote comedies, tragedies and histories with the foremost intent of entertaining the viewers, all the while infusing his works with moral issues, questions and dilemmas. He asked the questions others didn't dare to ask (e.g. Is it better to just suffer the crap that life throws at us or to try and fight a futile battle against life in which the end result will be death?), but he did this while either keeping the audience on the edge of their seats or rolling in the aisles laughing.
I love this because so many writers get caught up with using stories to instruct and inform (which is very important if not completely necessary for all literature to do this), but they lose sight of keeping their tales entertaining.
We need to be able to laugh, cry and feel emotions because of literature, not just look for theme statements and what the author wants a work to "mean".
2) I also love Shakespeare because of the effect he had on words of the English language. He not only was crucial to the formation of the language we speak today, influencing modern English in its conception by providing it with a plethora of words we still use (such as accursed, bedroom, epileptic, and my personal favorite: rant), but he was so important that he had a word made about him.
A very Shakespearean photo n'est pas?
Ok, well so does Justin Bieber, but this word has more than one meaning!
It can refer to a style of poetry, a school of academic thought, a mode of speaking and even an entire genre. (Take that Biebbutt! Your brain is as dry as the remainder biscuit after a voyage!)
Shakespeare wins again!
3) The reason I'm more excited about, is that I'm taking a Shakespearean class next semester! An entire course devoted to the powerful playwright, the Bard of BA, the scrumptious sonneteer!
=> Side note, I totally wasn't expecting sonneteer to be an actual word! I just discovered a word while trying to make one up. Zounds! I don't even know what to think about that. . .
OK, so obviously I'm kind of excited. But here's the main reason:
I just won an anthology of Shakespeare at an English Pizza Party!
It's got nearly every play, his most famous epic poems and the entirety of his sonnet collection! Score!
(The irony is in the fact that it contains every play I'm studying except the one the professor is most excited about. Aye, there's the rub!)
Yeah, I'm a nerd, I know. Just for me, Shakespeare is the coolest part of being an English Major. He's like the Mr. T or the Totoro of the English Department. He's big, trustworthy, but above all, awesome.
And, of course, my best experience of Shakespeare to date (and probably forever) is still Josh reading Othello in spare.
The Hankerchief!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have a great weekend again Tim. I hope you had a good day off and I hope you enjoyed the fact that I'm trying to set the record for most Shakespearean photos in one post.
See ya!
"On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures"
-Clayton
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Catechism
cat•e•chism (noun)
a summary of the principles of Christian religion in the form of questions and answers, used for the instruction of Christians.
• a series of fixed questions, answers, or precepts used for instruction in other situations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is the Catechism?
The catechism is a basic outline of the theology and practices of the church. It both outlines the faith and instructs the reader how to live out that faith in general ways to be applied in specific situations.
How is it structured?
All the main articles and doctrines are taught by means of questions of answers. A simple question of faith or practice is put forth followed by a somewhat lengthy (depending on the question) response, which is intended to be memorized by those being taught the Catechism at a future date, usually as part of ceremony or test.
What is the purposes of this testing?
The testing is used primarily in the Catholic church as part of the initiation into the larger church body. This is known as Confirmation, a rite of passage every child who grows up in the Catholic church must go through in order to be officially Catholic. This ceremony is symbolic of the Holy Spirit descending upon the youths, usually at pre-teen age and confirmed in the presence of the church and other believers.
So why am I talking about the Catechism?
Well, for a few reasons. I think it's a very interesting way of indoctrination. It's in a way very similar to Jewish Bar / Bat Mitzvahs as it is not only a means of joining a community, but it also doubles as a rite of passage; a way of growing up, something I think our Western culture needs more of.
I also think that it relates to what you talked about in your penultimate post. I'll admit, the text was daunting and I bet that as soon as you read that you'll be preparing to apologize. Don't even let that cross your mind. I didn't mind it because it let me know something very valuable about you I should have recognized a lot earlier.
What was it that I should have noticed?
Basically that even though neither of us (to my knowledge at least) were born in a Catholic church and didn't have to memorize a catechism text (again, I may be wrong about this), we both agree on a lot of crucial issues.
When I was writing my response about Machiavelli (a name that will now live in infamy amongst the two of us. . . just like the way he lives in infamy in today's culture (Curse you Niccolo!)), I wasn't even thinking about the implications of being obsessed with the eternal kingdom. I'm well aware of what happens when people become too focused on it rather than the present world in which we live in, I just didn't bother to ponder that implication while writing, and for this I apologize.
You're absolutely right. I once heard that Satan doesn't use our weaknesses but our strengths. He all to often uses the fact that we have been redeemed by Jesus on the cross to make us think that we are completely free of the troubles of this world and that we no longer have to worry about it. This just brings us right back to where the devil wants us: caring about no one other than ourselves and not living out our lives to the full as Christ intended.
Oh! I just thought of the perfect example while writing! Sorry, now I'm going off on a tangent, but it's only to affirm what you were saying!
This is St. Ignatius of Loyola (seen here becoming friends with some lions)
Hello Lions!
He was martyred and was thus canonized for dying for his faith. However, he is not someone we should look up to.
In his last letter written while being transported in chains to Rome to be executed, he urged the people of his church not to rescue him. He said he had become tired of life and just wanted to go to heaven, finally doing away with all the trials and tribulations he had to endure.
Now while the gospels do call us to accept the suffering for our faith, this doesn't mean even for a second that we should jump at the chance to die. Ignatius even tried to use pathos, saying that rescue attempts would be cruelty towards him as he was really looking forward to dying.
Now I'm not here to criticize a saint or his choices, but I will say as an example, this is not what should be done. Ignatius left his church without a leader or even parting words of guidance for the future. He was so focused on going to heaven, he lost sight of the bigger picture of what heaven really is.
So what is Heaven, really?
That, Mr. Tim, is a question for another time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, based on my rudimentary understanding of esterfication, I would say only b) and c) contain esters. However, I'm not sure if an Oxygen bonded to another Oxygen which is then bonded to a Carbon counts or not, which would then change my answer.
I like the Theory of Endosymbyosis (sorry if I spelled that wrong). It reminded me about what I learned about skeletal/striated muscle tissue the other day! Did you know that if you put two of these cells in a dish together, they will beat in unison, without even touching each other! That's crazy!
Also, while your meme was interesting, I don't think I'll repost it for myself because I don't think either you or I need to be defined by a list on the internet. I'm sure that's not your intent, but I just want to be careful not to get caught up in what the answers are. Tim, you're not normal and I mean that in the good way, not the bad way.
Normality is not a good thing (as Smunchkin demonstrated), at least in terms of just being like everybody else. You are so unique sometimes I don't think that basic physics will keep the universe together based on how crazyawesome you are.
I'm sorry to hear you're feeling lethargic and I hope you get the chance to do something exciting soon. We have less than a month until winter break and then we will be bombarded with igloos, sledding and other such necessary nonsense. Oh yes, it is entirely necessary. So much necessaryness.
And yes that is a word. I just made it real.
Have a great Remembrance Day weekend, Tim!
-Clayton
a summary of the principles of Christian religion in the form of questions and answers, used for the instruction of Christians.
• a series of fixed questions, answers, or precepts used for instruction in other situations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is the Catechism?
The catechism is a basic outline of the theology and practices of the church. It both outlines the faith and instructs the reader how to live out that faith in general ways to be applied in specific situations.
How is it structured?
All the main articles and doctrines are taught by means of questions of answers. A simple question of faith or practice is put forth followed by a somewhat lengthy (depending on the question) response, which is intended to be memorized by those being taught the Catechism at a future date, usually as part of ceremony or test.
What is the purposes of this testing?
The testing is used primarily in the Catholic church as part of the initiation into the larger church body. This is known as Confirmation, a rite of passage every child who grows up in the Catholic church must go through in order to be officially Catholic. This ceremony is symbolic of the Holy Spirit descending upon the youths, usually at pre-teen age and confirmed in the presence of the church and other believers.
So why am I talking about the Catechism?
Well, for a few reasons. I think it's a very interesting way of indoctrination. It's in a way very similar to Jewish Bar / Bat Mitzvahs as it is not only a means of joining a community, but it also doubles as a rite of passage; a way of growing up, something I think our Western culture needs more of.
I also think that it relates to what you talked about in your penultimate post. I'll admit, the text was daunting and I bet that as soon as you read that you'll be preparing to apologize. Don't even let that cross your mind. I didn't mind it because it let me know something very valuable about you I should have recognized a lot earlier.
What was it that I should have noticed?
Basically that even though neither of us (to my knowledge at least) were born in a Catholic church and didn't have to memorize a catechism text (again, I may be wrong about this), we both agree on a lot of crucial issues.
When I was writing my response about Machiavelli (a name that will now live in infamy amongst the two of us. . . just like the way he lives in infamy in today's culture (Curse you Niccolo!)), I wasn't even thinking about the implications of being obsessed with the eternal kingdom. I'm well aware of what happens when people become too focused on it rather than the present world in which we live in, I just didn't bother to ponder that implication while writing, and for this I apologize.
You're absolutely right. I once heard that Satan doesn't use our weaknesses but our strengths. He all to often uses the fact that we have been redeemed by Jesus on the cross to make us think that we are completely free of the troubles of this world and that we no longer have to worry about it. This just brings us right back to where the devil wants us: caring about no one other than ourselves and not living out our lives to the full as Christ intended.
Oh! I just thought of the perfect example while writing! Sorry, now I'm going off on a tangent, but it's only to affirm what you were saying!
This is St. Ignatius of Loyola (seen here becoming friends with some lions)
Hello Lions!
He was martyred and was thus canonized for dying for his faith. However, he is not someone we should look up to.
In his last letter written while being transported in chains to Rome to be executed, he urged the people of his church not to rescue him. He said he had become tired of life and just wanted to go to heaven, finally doing away with all the trials and tribulations he had to endure.
Now while the gospels do call us to accept the suffering for our faith, this doesn't mean even for a second that we should jump at the chance to die. Ignatius even tried to use pathos, saying that rescue attempts would be cruelty towards him as he was really looking forward to dying.
Now I'm not here to criticize a saint or his choices, but I will say as an example, this is not what should be done. Ignatius left his church without a leader or even parting words of guidance for the future. He was so focused on going to heaven, he lost sight of the bigger picture of what heaven really is.
So what is Heaven, really?
That, Mr. Tim, is a question for another time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, based on my rudimentary understanding of esterfication, I would say only b) and c) contain esters. However, I'm not sure if an Oxygen bonded to another Oxygen which is then bonded to a Carbon counts or not, which would then change my answer.
I like the Theory of Endosymbyosis (sorry if I spelled that wrong). It reminded me about what I learned about skeletal/striated muscle tissue the other day! Did you know that if you put two of these cells in a dish together, they will beat in unison, without even touching each other! That's crazy!
Also, while your meme was interesting, I don't think I'll repost it for myself because I don't think either you or I need to be defined by a list on the internet. I'm sure that's not your intent, but I just want to be careful not to get caught up in what the answers are. Tim, you're not normal and I mean that in the good way, not the bad way.
Normality is not a good thing (as Smunchkin demonstrated), at least in terms of just being like everybody else. You are so unique sometimes I don't think that basic physics will keep the universe together based on how crazyawesome you are.
I'm sorry to hear you're feeling lethargic and I hope you get the chance to do something exciting soon. We have less than a month until winter break and then we will be bombarded with igloos, sledding and other such necessary nonsense. Oh yes, it is entirely necessary. So much necessaryness.
And yes that is a word. I just made it real.
Have a great Remembrance Day weekend, Tim!
-Clayton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)