Sunday, July 27, 2014
Rather lame for me to skip a regular post two weeks in a row, but I had a pretty important project at work to polish off before Monday, so I haven’t had as much time this weekend as I’d like. And, as the hour grows later, I find it less and less likely that I’m going to come up with anything approaching a reasonable number of words for this week’s post. So I think I’ll just wait until next week when I have a reasonable chance of coming up with something worth reading.
Tune in then. Unless you’ve got something better to do.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
I can’t think of anything to write about this week.
Well, actually, I thought of several things to write about, but all of them seemed like they’d be more work than fun, and, if I spend several hours writing something that I don’t enjoy writing, you’re not going to enjoy reading it either. Trust me on that one. Maybe next week I can get my thoughts more organized and actually complete one of the several ideas I have in my “topics” file.
So, this is the third time I’ve written a post like this, and I seem to have started a tradition of using these posts as a retrospective on the blog itself. And far be it from me to dismiss tradition, even one that I invented myself, mostly accidentally.
So, my handy dandy blogger.com control panel tells me I have 219 posts. Checking how many of them are “interstitial” (that is, posts which mostly say that I’m not going to do a full post), I see 79, although some of those are more substantial than others (such as the very first “nothing to say” post), and of course 34 of them are posts over on my Other Blog. Counting the Perl posts but discounting the remainder of the interstitials, that would leave us with 174 posts, which average around 1,500 words each. At least, 1,500 is what I generally shoot for. Why, you ask? Well, I suppose it’s because I wrote my very first post, then went back and counted how many words it was, and it was 1,536, and I said to myself: that sounds about right. Of course sometimes I fall short, and the post is only around 1,200, or even, very rarely, between 800 and 900. But, then again, sometimes I manage to crank out 2,000-word monsters, so it probably all balances out. If we figure 1,500 words as an average, that would be 261,000 words, which is pretty overwhelming. If I just do a raw count of words in all the files in my blog folder (which not only includes several half-finished posts that haven’t been published yet, but also counts words in quotes and links and other things which I typically exclude in my personal word count, and would also count the interstitials), I get 250,001, plus the chapters of my novel (in a whole separate folder) adds another 56,687 words, for a total of 306,688. (Also, it might be that there are some posts which aren’t in the directory: the very first post wasn’t in there, as it happens, although I downloaded it so I could count it just now. But there might be others missing as well.)
Either way, somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter million words doesn’t seem an unreasonable guess. That’s a lot of words for you not to read. I do continue to remind you not to read this blog, as if the title weren’t sufficient. Occasionally I post links to this blog, especially on my other blog, when I don’t want to repeat myself and I’ve already expounded on a topic plenty. Inevitably, this leads to someone’s smartass comment: “I went to the link you provided, but it said not to read it, so I didn’t.” Oh ho ho. Perhaps it actually does bear saying explicitly: I don’t particularly need you to remind me of the name of this blog. I’m the one who named it. If you’re confused about the name, please go back and read the first post, or even go back and peruse the first ”nothing to say” post, which contains some interesting meanderings about the nature of paradox and its application to a blog which I continue to write weekly at the same time I exhort the public not to read it. Go on and read (or reread) those; I’ll wait.
Done? Good. Let’s move on then.
The name is really more of a warning that you have to make a conscious choice to read a post here, despite warnings to the contrary. Perhaps a more realistic name would have been ”Warning: Management assumes no responsibility for any time wasted while perusing the content herein. By continuing to read, you assume all responsibility for any crappy opinions you may encounter, any statements that may cause you to be enraged and/or disgusted, and/or any words that might be considered ‘bad’ by more sensitive readers. The reader proceeds at his or her own risk.” But, you know ... “Do Not Read This Blog!” just seemed shorter.
So I keep on writing and telling you not to read, and that’s unlikely to change. After a quarter million words, why stop now? I seem to have a winning formula going. Plus, I’m starting to enjoy it. At least a little. Theoretically, you do too ... else why keep reading? I doubt anyone is assigning you my blog posts as homework, so you’ve exercised your freedom of choice to read this far. Said freedom of choice may realistically be better exercised elsewhere, if you ask me, but you’re a big boy or girl and don’t need my permission nor my advice. In fact, you’re sort of ignoring my opinion to read all about my opinions on various topics. And, at the end of the day, that’s the real reason this blog is named “do not read.” Because, that way, if you ignore me and read it anyway, you’re forced to confront the fact that you can’t possibly listen to anything I have to say without simulataneously ignoring something I have to say. It’s a great reminder that you should take crap you read on other people’s blogs with large quantities of sodium chloride. And it makes you confront the paradoxes inherent in life by making you live one. And you know how I feel about paradox.
So keep reading, if you must. I’ll keep writing. Except when I don’t. It’s a crazy ol’ world we live in, but it’s the only one we’ve got. May as well make the most of it.
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Today I waxed somewhat rhapsodic about a Perl-related Kickstarter project, over on the Other Blog. There’s very little technical mumbo-jumbo, so feel free to pop over even if you’re not a fellow technogeek. It’s mostly about the interesting choices that Kickstarter gives us techies sometimes.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. [Emerson]
No doubt you’ve heard this quote before, although some people seem to miss the “foolish” part. Emerson isn’t bagging on consistency here. What he’s talking about is dogma: getting stuck on an idea and refusing to let go, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Perhaps it would help to look at the context of the quote:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think today in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today.
‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.— Ralph Waldo Emerson, from Self-Reliance (1841)
What Emerson is advising is to admit when you’re wrong. To embrace change, even in your own mind, and to refuse to look back and second-guess yourself. To be completely comfortable with contradicting yourself.
I especially love how he says that a foolish consistency is “adored by little statesmen.” If you follow politics even casually (which is about all I can stand to follow it, myself), you know that if a politician today dares to change their mind, their opponents will leap on them instantaneously. “Flip-flopper!” is the typical epithet. Refusal to compromise one’s principles has become a virtue, although refusal to compromise should probably not be a virtue in politics no matter what exactly one is refusing to compromise. But, if we look back to Emerson, we see that those who do not “flip-flop” are employing a foolish consistency, which then speaks volumes about the volume of their brainpower.
Of course, the smart guys aren’t typically the ones we elect. Adlai Stevenson is a great example. He’s famous for two things: being intelligent, articulate and erudite, and failing to get elected to the presidency despite trying 3 times in a row. Stevenson once said to reporters:
Isn’t it conceivable to you that an intelligent person could harbor two opposing ideas in his mind?
Stevenson here goes a bit beyond Emerson, who talked about believing something today that was the opposite of what you believed yesterday. Stevenson takes the next step and is perfectly willing to believe two opposite things at the same time. For a Baladocian such as myself, this is an attractive proposition.
Of course, we needn’t limit ourselves to politicians—poets have weighed in as well.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)— Walt Whitman, from Leaves of Grass, “Song of Myself” (51)
In just a few words, Whitman takes aim at why we contradict ourselves, and why it’s perfectly acceptable to do so. The landscape of the human mind is vast, Whitman says. Just as one vista may contain both mountains and canyons, both ocean and desert, so too does a person contain many ideas which are antithetical to each other. This often leads us to feel conflicted. We should not. We should embrace the paradoxes in our nature. Stephen Fry (who is neither a politician nor a poet, but easily as eloquent as either) puts it thus:
So we have first and foremost to grow up and recognise that to be human and to be adult means constantly to be in the grip of opposing emotions, to have daily to reconcile apparently conflicting tensions. I want this, but need that. I cherish this, but I adore its opposite too. I’m maddened by this institution yet I prize it above all others.— Stephen Fry, BAFTA speech, 2010
Oscar Wilde (once portrayed by Stephen Fry, perhaps not coincidentally) was, as usual, more succinct:
The well bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves.
And now we’ve progressed from self-contradiction being acceptable, through it being something to embrace, and ended up with it being a sign of wisdom. Sort of makes you want to start contradicting yourself right away.
Or maybe not.
At the bottom, I think all of these great speakers were saying something about the human condition. Which is perhaps all that any writer—whether of essays, plays, poems, speeches, or merely witticisms—wants to do. You can write things that sound pretty, but unless there is some Truth in it, it won’t have much lasting impact. We all search for insight, both internally and externally, and the thing we most wish to be revealed is ourselves. It’s difficult to understand ourselves from within ourselves, just as the classic fishbowl analogy teaches us. Those folks outside the fishbowl have a much different perspective than those of us for whom 115.5 cubic inches of water are our entire world. So we want those people who have the ability to express themselves with some flair to express something about ourselves that we can’t see from inside.
Of course, we also hate to be criticized, for other people to point out our flaws. Yet I think we crave it at the same time. Just another example of our inherent tendency toward self-contradiction.
I know personally that I hate to be wrong. Sometimes I’m accused of hating to admit that I’m wrong. But that’s not the same thing at all, and I don’t believe I have the latter problem. To work hard not to be wrong—to attempt to forge the future in such a way as to be as good and right as you can manage—is admirable. To refuse to admit you’re wrong—to deny the immutable past in which everyone already recognizes your folly—is just self-delusional. So is it self-contradictory to work overtime to prevent the future mistake, while simultaneously being completely comfortable with those in the past? Perhaps. If so, I don’t particularly care. I’ve been wrong many times in the past, and I know I’ll be wrong many more times in the future. That doesn’t mean I have to accept it meekly.
Willingness to accept your mistakes is also part of being human. To consult one last great orator:
I am human, and I make mistakes. Therefore my commitment must be to truth and not to consistency.— Gandhi
Mohandas K.Gandhi often changed his mind publicly. An aide once asked him how he could so freely contradict this week what he had said just last week. The great man replied that it was because this week he knew better.— a Detroit News editorial
Indeed. This week, I’m ever so much smarter than I was last week. Last week I was a moron. By next week, I shall be a genius. I’ll be different, but I’ll still be me. Misunderstood, multitudinous, opposing, conflicted, occasionally wise, always human.