Swearing

Hey Everyone,
So I thought I'd talk a little bit about swearing today. Yesterday I was on campus and I walked past some construction workers who were swearing quite a lot. I was so surprised cause it's the first time I've heard swearing on campus (other than an accident I once had.) Anyway, it got me to thinking about swearing so here are some thoughts on the matter.

I guess the real question is "why is swearing wrong?" When you think about how we avoid swearing using words like Frick for the F-word, or any other lame substitute it seems kinda weird that swearing is bad. If the word is a substitution it should still cause the person to think of the original word which should cause a similar response in the listener. Also, when you explain what a bad word means the actual meaning of the word can be explained in totally mundane speech without offending anyone, so it's not really the meaning of the word that's offensive...it's the sense of the word.

A brilliant mathematician turned philosopher of language wrote a paper called "On Sense and Nomenatum" where he made an interesting disctinction on this point. He said words don't reference a static meaning, they reference "a sense of the word." By this he meant that when you say a word like "horse" people don't just think of a definition of the word but they reference an overall sense of the word, including horses they've seen, maybe thinking about horse rides, manure etc. This is partly why language is so elusive for many. It's also why there are some girl's names that I find beautiful that are kinda ugly--I've just known beautiful girls with those names and they've changed my overall sense for their names...and it's also why the name Jessica is so hideous.

Also, the way someone feels about a word and their intent in using the word needs to be addressed. Take the statement "I love you." If someone I just met on the street for the first time told me they loved me I'd say "well, appreciate the sentiment," but the meaning of "love" in that sense would be very weak. It has linguistic content but no emotional content. However, if someone in my family told me they loved me it would be a very different thing. As they said the words I'd probably feel a rush of emotion and think of the depth and time invested in our relationship and feel a very strong sense of the word emotionally and linguistically.

What is really weird is how even the moment and the place can change the sense (and thus the meaning) of a word. For example, if I was overlooking Provo valley after a wonderful date (a wonderful date of many) and I was holding her close and I really felt something for her and I finally told her "I love you" for the first time... that would be very different from sharing that revelation in a text message. If both statements are true, and if both statements were inspired because of a steady and beautiful connection you'd think the two would be the same. The reason they're not is because when we're close and overlooking Provo valley we're increaseing the "sense" of the word love by associating the beauty of the moment with the word.

So, if the emotional content, place, and time, create the sense of a word, and thus it's meaning, it's kinda strange to say that swearing is bad (because there may be no negative emotional content or circumstances for a negative sense of the "bad" word). It should be that speaking badly is bad, or speaking meanly or whatever. However, swearing is still bad, if for no other reason than it's taboo speech.

I once had a linguistics class where we spent a few days discussing"taboo speech." It's kinda interesting how taboo speech works cause we sorta collectively choose words to be bad. The way we make them bad is by choosing to restrict their use. We have to do this or the words really aren't bad at all. Swearing works because we say "this is a word you shouldn't use, so if you use it, a rule is being broken." That way, when someone swears, they are making a statement about how they feel about the rule not to use the word, and that statement reflects on how they're using the word--and what they're using the word for. When you swear at someone what you're saying to them is "I'm so mad at you that I am willing to disregard social propriety to fully express my feelings." The disregard for correctness puts a feeling of discomfort in the listener and onlookers, and forces them to re-evaluate the intensity of the speakers emotions.

The problem with this is that when people swear all the time the language stops being taboo. Luckily we have dictionaries and other commentaries on language that keep language relatively static so we can still have some swear words. These resources don't change as quickly as the words in them, because of this, we still have some measure of control over how we perceive words. Just be grateful, if we didn't have dictionaries and such we might have to come up with new swear words every week just to keep things fresh.

Well, I got more to say but I better get some stuff done. Hope you all have a great day.

Why Tarzan Books are Great

Okay, so here is some higher order literary criticism...for the Tarzan series. I am often asked "Okay sir, you're perhaps the most well-read person I know. You've read nearly every landmark work in the English language from Beowulf to 10 pages of Twilight. Why is it that you so passionately embrace a piece of admittedly escapist pulp fiction?"

Well, to be honest, no one has actually ever asked me that question, but I think some people mean to ask me that question when I tell them how much I loved the Tarzan books. So, anyway, if that question is ever asked, here is my answer.

I love the Tarzan books because they are about freedom. When I read the Tarzan books I was around 15 years old. I was at the perfect age. I was just starting to get a taste for what life would be like as a grown up--and I was scared. Grown ups don't have lazy summers where they just sit around idly watching water dry on the pavement after an intense water balloon fight. Grown ups don't run down the street barefoot just cause they can. Sadly, grown ups don't ever really do anything for the sake of the thing itself...grown ups always focus on the ends of their actions and forget the intrinsic value of the action itself.

In all they do the future hangs over adults like a spectre--every moment tainted by worry and obligation over some future contingency. Even supposed escapes are tainted by responsibility and obligation. When grown ups try to escape their problems all they do is convert their existing problems into a more attractive form. For example, on a vacation they worry about having as much fun as possible and hitting all the right spots, on weekends they worry about Monday's meeting etc. Simply put, as we age, the child like frivolousness, the ability to fully appreciate a perfectly hedonistic summer (the original meaning of the word thank you very much), the ability to fully be in the moment and appreciate its beauty disappears. And what do we do to compensate for this loss? Well, most of us just compensate by taking on more responsibilities. We take on new chains of responsibility, one at a time, wondering if the next one will so occupy us that we can finally get lost in work the way we used to get lost in play. With stuffy self-importance we accept each chain as indicative of increased adultly (new word) status and we thankfully begin our dogged march through adulthood. Everyone does this, it's part of growing up....for everyone but Tarzan.

Tarzan never learned about responsibility, until he was in his late 20s he didn't even know the word existed (and even then it would have been the French word for responsibility since he learned French before English). Tarzan grew up in the untamed jungle. Every day he'd stop and recognize the beauty around him. Tarzan had no conception of time. He just went from stages of being hungry to not being hungry. He slept when he wanted to, he ate when he wanted to. He was the master of his element, the true king of the jungle. When Tarzan took out a deer with his father's trusty hunting knife he roared at the top of his lungs and the whole jungle trembled. Even the lions (who admittedly aren't all that ferocious) skulked away.

So just imagine how deeply Tarzan's freedom would affect me as a 15 year old boy. I was just starting to realize the weight of responsibility that awaited me as an adult. Every day I was told where I needed to be, what I needed to do, when I needed to be there...Tarzan didn't worry about any of that stuff. Tarzan was free in a way that I could barely imagine... Tarzan didn't even have to wear pants (he did however accessorize when he met Jane).

Just think about what it would be like to be Tarzan. He didn't even know what it meant to lie until he met white explorers. Tarzan didn't know anything about being self-conscious, he didn't know anything about jealousy or frustration. Tarzan forever lived in the moment--only limited by his strength (and he was super strong so not much of a limitation) and his mind (and he was a genius).

Speaking of Tarzan's intelligence, so many people miss that. They always think of him as the terse, barely coherent "me Tarzan, you Jane." That is just ridiculous. Edgar Rice Burroughs even made fun of his beloved Tarzan's film characterization in his 22nd book. In that book Tarzan somehow manages to find the set of a movie based on his adventures. Coincidentally (we accept all coincidences as completely natural in these books) a lion escapes that day and the real Tarzan takes him down in front of everyone and saves the day. The director looks at Tarzan in all his ferocious splendor and says "maybe he could look the part," but then he dismisses the idea and says "no, he looks too intelligent."

You see, Tarzan was an English lord. He was self-educated, but by the end of the books he could speak fluently in over 20 languages. Tarzan beat the animals not because he was stronger (as they mistakenly show in the movies), but because he was smarter. Put simply, Tarzan was the best man that Burroughs could envision. Tarzan was handsome, strong, smart, honest, kind...he was everything I wanted to be, but I never envied him for any of these things, I only envied his freedom.

I wanted to run through the jungle feeling healthy and alive. I wanted to have no constraints, no schedule, to yell when I felt like it--to do whatever came to my mind simply because I thought to do it. I wanted to be totally free in a way that someone growing up in a city could only haphazardly imagine.

So, that's why the books are great. You can't help but read them and notice time slowing down. You can't help but read them and notice that so many of the things weighing you down are a bit silly, but most importantly you can't read them without feeling like you've cheated the system a little and postponed growing up, if only for a little while. Reading these books helps remind you of what you gave up to become a grown up.

Bill Shatner

I know you've all often wondered about how cool William Shatner is. Well, here is a video that puts it all in perspective for you. This is him performing Rocket Man. Honestly, I can't tell if he's serious or crazy--either way this makes me smile every time. Man, 1978 was cool. That unfiltered cigarette must make the surgeon general cry.

Rocketman

Also, if you can still handle more here is another actor's career low--this time David Hasselhoff. I just can't imagine what he was thinking when he made this video. From what I've heard, that crazy freaky looking thing at 1:50 is a character from a popular German television show. If you can figure out why Davie felt the need to bite into a fish and spit it out at 3:09 you're smarter than me. Anyway, hope you enjoy this. I really don't understand why we let the Hoff out of our country when he goes and behaves like this.

Don't Hassle the Hoff

Values

Today I thought I'd write about "values." Rather than talking about what I value I just thought I'd write about what it means to value something. I had a talk about this with one of my professors over a year ago and it was a really fun discussion. Basically we came up with this: values are for people who don't want to justify their opinions.

We hear people talk about values all the time. Values are in the news, values are brought up in political discussions, values are mentioned in child rearing and the list could go on. The thing that all discussions of value have in common is that they are subjective. Think about it, if someone says they value something I can't tell them they don't value it. They aren't making a claim about the thing they value, they are only making a claim regarding their relationship to what they value, namely, that they value it.

This makes speaking in terms of values very misleading. When you say you value something it sounds like you're making a profound and deliberate statement regarding what you value, but in reality, you're only giving the pretense of a substantial position. Values have nothing to do with right and wrong. Hitler valued racial purity, Jeffrey Dahmer valued a good meal, and Voldemort valued power (just read the first Harry Potter book), but these values would be considered bad by most.

I think that people are staring to speak in terms of values because they want to skirt the issue of what they really think and feel. They don't want to subject their opinions to the strict scrutiny of the truth, they don't want to speak about whether something is right or wrong, they don't want to offend anyone or put forth the effort required for a substantial position. What they do want is to look like they have something to say, sound well informed, mimic agreement, or sound intelligent.

Oh, and on that note, (running with the idea of how values "mimic agreement") why do you think politicians constantly talk about "good old-fashioned values"? What are these values? Well, because they're talking about values, they're not obligated to say. These vague values could refer to anything from slavery to making a good car. When someone says "good old fashioned values" I think of American Industry, or people knowing their neighbor, but someone else might think of something entirely different. Basically, speaking about good old fashioned values is letting them say "I believe in X where X= whatever you think is important." This lets them make everyone feel like they're on their side without even taking a side. This really gets on my nerves. Speaking in terms of values is just posturing.

I hope we all can take an approach to life where we see right and wrong. We don't have to be pretentious or offensive, we just need to be aware that some decisions are better than others and that not all opinions are equal.

Now please keep in mind that I'm not saying we shouldn't have values. Of course we should. Values are important, even necessary, for any thinking person. I am just afraid of, and writing against, how discussing important matters in terms of what we value leads to a relativist approach to truth.

Well...you know what? Forget it. How about this: I value meaningful discussion, I value discussions that focus on right and wrong, and I value not opining in terms of values... see how much easier that is?

Mr. Farrakhan

Okay, so here is Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the radical group"The Muslim Nation." He's speaking on the atonement. This talk was given during the Million Man March in Washington D.C.at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial. Now, you may think I'm making fun of this guy by posting this link. To all of you who think this I just wanna say....well, yeah, you're probably right, I am kinda making fun of him, but this guy is nuts and he's the funny kind of "taking myself too seriously" nuts so it's okay to laugh at him. Anyway, without further ado, here is Minister Louis Farrakhan's brilliant explanation of the atonement.

Atonement

For those of you who want to hear an extended version of that talk with commentary by Kevin and Bean here ya go.

Extended

Works of Love

I just thought I'd quickly share the first paragraph of Kierkegaard's conclusion for the Works of Love. I read this passage in a Kierkegaard class once, the professor read it aloud and cried by the end of it. It's way more beautiful in the context of the entire book but this little bit carries the gist of it all.

***
In this book we have endeavored "man times and in many ways" to praise love. As we thank God that we have succeeded in completing the book in the way we wished, we shall now conclude by introducing the Apostle John, who says, "Beloved, let us love one another." These words, which have apostolic authority, also have, if you consider them, an intermediate tone or an intermediate mood in connection with the contrasts in love itself. The basis of this is that they are by one who was perfected in love. You do not hear the rigorousness of duty in these words; the apostle does not say, "you shall love one another"; but neither do you hear the vehemence of poet-passion and of inclination. There is something transfigured and beatific in these words, but there is also a sadness that is agitated over life and mitigated by the eternal. It is as if the apostle said, "Dear me, what is all this that would hinder you in loving, what is all this that you can win by self-love! The commandment is that you shall love, but ah, if you will understand yourself and life, then it seems that it should not be commanded, because to love people is the only thing worth living for, and without this love you are not really living. Moreover, to love people is the only blessed comfort both here and in the next world; and to love people is the only true sign that you are a Christian"--truly, a profession of faith is not enough either.

***

Every time I read through Works of Love I get something different out of it. This last time I thought about the relationship between depression and love. I think the question we should ask ourselves when life gets rough is whether or not we're loving enough. Sadness and depression are inherently selfish. You cannot be depressed without also focusing, nearly to exclusion of all else, on yourself. Depression is then, by extension, a form of self-love (Kierkegaard defines self-love as self-preferment). So, if you're down, trying doing something nice for someone, find "the only blessed comfort both here and in the next world." It is really hard to be depressed and actively love someone at the same time. Anyway, just a thought.

Burning CDs

Hey all,
So, lately I've been burning a lot of CDs and I just thought I'd post about the proper way to create and distribute burnt CDs. I've been burning CDs since back in the day when burners cost over 300 dollars and Napster was legal. Keep in mind what I relate here is just opinion, but it's opinion in a sense similar to my opinion that it would have been a good idea to buy Microsoft stock in 1986.

CD creation:

Song 1

When you burn a CD you need to start with a grabber. The first song should be catchy and somewhat recognizable. It should be a song that makes people say "hey I like this song, wonder what else is on this CD." You don't want this song to be your best song. This song should be like a first date: short, fun, shallow, but interesting enough to keep someone around.

Song 2

Song 2 is all about showing the breadth of the CD. You got the fun grabber taken care of, now that you've got some interest you need to show some dimension. You don't want to go all crazy and emo on your listeners or anything, you just wanna show them something a little edgy so they know you're not making some trite, teeny bopper-esque, soda pop swilling, bubble gum chewing, piece of pop trash.

Song 3

This song is meant to be a fun one, perhaps the most exciting of the entire CD. Song 1 grabbed them, song 2 showed some depth, and now song 3 is meant to get back on track and escalate the CD to new levels of supernalacity (new word, tell your friends).
Song 4

In baseball your fourth batter is your best hitter---your cleanup. Similarly, on a CD the fourth song should be the best you have to offer. This is the most important song on the CD. Make sure it's your favorite. This is the song where you just put it out there and say "Yeah, that's right. This CD rocks. You've never heard a CD this good before. You might want to stop listening now... unless you have an extremely high tolerance for awesomeness."

Song 5

Song 5 is kinda introspective, sometimes it's a bit Indy. This is the song that you're not quite sure you understand, it's a little bit out of sync with the rest of the CD...but this is okay cause you've already won their hearts with song 4 so they can take it.

Now, the rest of the songs can be of any particular type and feel all the way up to the last song or two.

The last song should be your conclusion, it should be a little bit slower, but fun enough that people will want to give the CD another listen. Kinda like the closing remarks of a paper, you should use this time to tie your loose ends up. I am of the opinion that the last song should be a bit nostalgic or pensive, but even tempoed and melodic enough that you don't end the CD depressed.

Now that you've made the CD you need to name it. I personally like funny names but I've seen people work other types. You want the title to be descriptive enough that you know what you're getting into, but you should leave some room for the imagination. If you're really struggling for creativity you can just name the CD after the title of song#4. Don't be afraid to pompously label your CD in ways that suggest it's better than all other CDs burnt to date.

CD Dissemination:

Okay, now that you've made the CD you're the lucky owner of the greatest CD ever, but you don't wanna just sit on that joy. It's kinda like missionary work, you've got something beautiful, it must be shared.

Now, here are some warnings.

1) Never give a CD to someone when you don't trust their taste in music. It is a sin to cast pearls before swine.

2) Rarely, if ever, give CDs to someone of the opposite gender. There are 3 main exceptions. 1) you're dating them seriously, 2) it's a greatest hit CD 3) they give you a list of songs they want. The reason you shouldn't give CDs to the opposite gender is they project meaning onto the songs you pick. For example, if you make a CD for a girl and there is a song about not knowing how to express your love she'll think you're trying to tell her you love her but you don't know how. I've learned from sad experience that this is the case. The three exceptions I've listed are exceptions because they are the three instances when a CD can't be misconstrued as a subtle romantic overture....1 because they already know how you feel, 2) because a greatest hits CD is nothing more than a collection of that bands best music so the intent of the CD (to capture the band's greatness) is explicitly stated, and 3) they picked the songs so if there is a subtle statement it's coming from them, not you.

For the most part it's best to just give people greatest hits CDs. I usually burn about 3 extra copies of a greatest hits CD to share with friends that I know enjoy the band.

Okay, I think I'm done writing now. Happy burning!