So, within the past few days my brother put out the majority of our outdoor Christmas decorations. It's a pretty strange sight to the uninitiated: plastic penguins with green or red lightbulbs inside line the stairs up to the front door, and there's a plastic snoopy as well as some angels and the obligatory lights along the railing and in the trees.
Let me state for the record that I love it, even with all of its tackiness. I think that no matter what my religious beliefs ever stabilize into, I will always love Christmas. I don't think it matters that much that it's largely a cultural celebration - it's still a celebration, and it's still something that helps us shift our perspecrtive into something really spirited and magical for a few weeks.
Anyway. I was saying. The other night, soon after the penguins has been lit for the night, we found one of the (many) little kids in the neighborhood outside on our steps making friends with the penguins. I mean, he was absolutely falling in love with them. He was walking up and down, talking to himself and them, standing back to look, coming forward for inspection and interaction, totally lost in whatever fantasy world he'd dreamed up around himself and them.
The best part? He was dressed in a fuzzy little zebra suit, which was evidently a halloween costume before it became part of his permanent outfit repertoire. There were a few other kids that came by and poked fun at him for the zebra-ness; he came back with a few dismissive responses, and didn't seem too overly upset by them. I noticed that he spoke with a stutter, and probably some day he's going to be "that kid" in class that stands out a bit.
Well, good for him. Watching him made me remember days of playing "school" with a bunch of stuffed animals, or hanging out in the forest building forts and fighting off imaginary "enemies" with my brother, or building habitats for my beanie babies out of scraps of wood. It made me remember how easy it is for kids to take something simple, like some plastic figures, and create an entire universe around them, and actually live there for awhile. It's like they have this determination that says that the fact that something isn't physically or immediately apparent isn't at all a good enough reason for not still trying to experience it, especially if it's a really good idea, and I think there's a lot of (unintended) wisdom in that perspective.*
Plus, hell, it's just fun. I'd be lying if I said I didn't go back inside and spend awhile in my own universe.
*That wasn't intended to be a religiously oriented statement so much as a statement about just not letting one's self be limited by what might seem to be insurmountable constraints.
23 November 2007
19 November 2007
The More You Change
Driving home from Pittsburgh is always a somewhat cathartic experience for me. It's hard to explain exactly why - I think just having a few solid hours of activity that demands my attention without requiring cohesive thought distracts me enough on one level, and lets me think enough on another level, that in some ways it's like pushing a giant mental "reset" button.
Regardless, the drive home tonight went really well. After escaping Pittsburgh proper, I didn't run into any slowdowns at all. I got to drive through some fog, which was actually pretty cool (I suppose it would have been bad if there was snow or a bunch of other traffic, but alas...)
Per my usual habit, I checked DC101 a little while after getting into Maryland, and caught all of "Tonight, Tonight" by the Smashing Pumpkins. That song has long been a favorite of mine; I absolutely adore the "walking to the gallows" sound of the drum section. I don't mean that to sound morbid: the song is about figuring out that you don't have to be content with old patterns of thinking / feeling, and I've always felt like the drums along with the lines about "resolute urgency" and "We'll crucify the insincere" do an amazing job of portraying this feeling of putting one's emotional foot down to take a step down another path. I think the idea of "dying to self" shows up in a lot of spiritual philosophies, and I like how the song approaches that idea optimistically, but with a very human recognition of how hard it can be.
I like the video a lot, too, except for Billy Corgan's vampire-esque figure lurking all over the place.
After getting home, I hung out some with my Mom and my brother, drank some Sam Adams Brown Ale, and read some Cryptonomicon. I am absolutely determined to finish that book by the end of the semester, hopefully by the end of this week. I found out that I have a fairly substantial coding assignment for my computer security class to get done over break. I haven't looked at it yet, but apparently we have to write a bunch of buffer overflows that execute code to query some server somewhere...it should be fun, at least, even though apparently it takes awhile. Meh.
Regardless, the drive home tonight went really well. After escaping Pittsburgh proper, I didn't run into any slowdowns at all. I got to drive through some fog, which was actually pretty cool (I suppose it would have been bad if there was snow or a bunch of other traffic, but alas...)
Per my usual habit, I checked DC101 a little while after getting into Maryland, and caught all of "Tonight, Tonight" by the Smashing Pumpkins. That song has long been a favorite of mine; I absolutely adore the "walking to the gallows" sound of the drum section. I don't mean that to sound morbid: the song is about figuring out that you don't have to be content with old patterns of thinking / feeling, and I've always felt like the drums along with the lines about "resolute urgency" and "We'll crucify the insincere" do an amazing job of portraying this feeling of putting one's emotional foot down to take a step down another path. I think the idea of "dying to self" shows up in a lot of spiritual philosophies, and I like how the song approaches that idea optimistically, but with a very human recognition of how hard it can be.
I like the video a lot, too, except for Billy Corgan's vampire-esque figure lurking all over the place.
After getting home, I hung out some with my Mom and my brother, drank some Sam Adams Brown Ale, and read some Cryptonomicon. I am absolutely determined to finish that book by the end of the semester, hopefully by the end of this week. I found out that I have a fairly substantial coding assignment for my computer security class to get done over break. I haven't looked at it yet, but apparently we have to write a bunch of buffer overflows that execute code to query some server somewhere...it should be fun, at least, even though apparently it takes awhile. Meh.
12 November 2007
Old Friends
Life keeps blazing by. Two weekends ago I saw Alli in her swim meet against Pitt. It was really cool to see her again...it really didn't seem like it had been that long since high school
This past weekend Adam drove up to visit, and it was a lot of fun. He stayed with Laura and I on Saturday night - Saturday ended up being a pretty long day since I got up for buggy and ended up staying up pretty late since we had a handful of people over to hang out and watch a movie that night. It was a really fun day, though, and I wouldn't have traded it for anything.
Yesterday I felt like I was two steps off for most of the day, probably just from being really tired, but it was a pretty good day also. Last night I ended up staying up kinda late again since Laura invited Colin and me to her sorority's crush party.
Hmm. So, a week until I drive home for Thanksgiving break. It's going to be a pretty busy week, so I'm looking forward to at least being somewhere a lot calmer for a few days.
This past weekend Adam drove up to visit, and it was a lot of fun. He stayed with Laura and I on Saturday night - Saturday ended up being a pretty long day since I got up for buggy and ended up staying up pretty late since we had a handful of people over to hang out and watch a movie that night. It was a really fun day, though, and I wouldn't have traded it for anything.
Yesterday I felt like I was two steps off for most of the day, probably just from being really tired, but it was a pretty good day also. Last night I ended up staying up kinda late again since Laura invited Colin and me to her sorority's crush party.
Hmm. So, a week until I drive home for Thanksgiving break. It's going to be a pretty busy week, so I'm looking forward to at least being somewhere a lot calmer for a few days.
06 November 2007
Construction
In my American Culture class we're reading a book called "The Culture of Plenty," and it's about the way that the post-WWII economy ushered in what was apparently the first era in all of history where the "average" person was no longer merely working to survive. I don't think I'd ever stopped to consider just how different life in 21st century America really is from life in other places and times.
The author talks about how this enabled the rise of feminism and the civil rights movement, and I've been particularly interested in his discussion of feminism. I think most of us have gotten the 4th grade story about women's suffrage and how this movement in the early 20th century just sort of arose out of the ether when women decided (arbitrarily?) that it was time to put their collective high-heeled feet down and demand some rights. Then, as we get a bit older, we get into discussions from the 60's and 70's about equality in the workplace as women start to become more and more career-minded.
The book's author has done quite a bit to step back both from this rote description of fact and from the sometimes venomous feminist rhetoric to try and understand what society in general was actually trying to accomplish. This is a bit of a generalization, but his basic argument is that after the war, people were desperate for some kind of peaceful and quiet existence. The infrastructure developed during the war allowed for a more efficient economy, but it also meant that the household was no longer an actual unit of production. This kind of led to a new division of labor that grew from the old patriarchal system wherein men still tried to "produce" and the women's job was then to manage the household - the new center of "consumption." Not only that, but women (as the socially constructed nurturers) were expected to provide quiet comfort and safety for a somewhat shell-shocked society.
This was important on two different levels. The most immediate was that previously, the "glue" holding households together (particularly agrarian ones, but to some extent also ones in urban settings) was the need to survive. Without this dire necessity, people became a lot more introspective - and at the same time, women in particular started feeling (subconsciously?) that perhaps their innate skills weren't being fully used (which is enough to make anyone kind of unhappy.) This combined with the perhaps subtler effect that modern inventions were ensuring that they developed progressively fewer skills contributed to the creation of the "neurotic housewife" - restless, frustrated, and resentful.
Without getting into a debate about technology as useful vs harmful (I address that below), I think it's an interesting train of thought because it's a way to look at feminism without immediately jumping to the conclusion that men are evil, ignorant pigs who hate women. It's certainly true that they created (or helped create) this role for women that led to some pretty unfulfilling situations, but I think it's hard to actually find or assign much malice here.
Rather, it's more of a look at the roles and ideals that we (as a society) tend to create, and how hard it is to keep an actual perspective on what's going on. It also brings up the question of what, exactly, keeps couples (and families) together as life becomes less and less dependent (at least economically) on having a strong family. It's a double edged sword for a lot of people, because while people presumably have more energy to put into social ties (including relationships), they also have a lot more energy to put into self-fulfillment. People talk a lot about the high divorce rate and how hard it is for people to commit to each other, and how this is a reflection of the loosening morals of the modern age, and how marriage and the family won't actually survive in any positive, recognizable sense.
I don't think so. I would actually tend to argue the opposite. I believe, very strongly, that humans are inherently social. I think that our era can be considered as just another transitional period. It makes sense to me that this seemingly "selfish" society where people are intent on self-fulfillment will probably, in the long run, enable people to actually get GOOD at figuring out what makes them happy and fulfilled. As people learn to reach that fulfillment and stop depending on externalities, healthy relationships become the natural result (as opposed to the zero-sum game that a lot of people still seem to experience...) I acknowledge that my argument is still a bit normative, as I'm assuming that most people will find fulfillment in companionship.
Now that I think about it, though - you could even take away that assumption, and allow for some people to be socially oriented, and others not so much. As it becomes more of a choice and less of a structural imperative, I think it will still result in the same end. (Eg, people who are unhappy in relationships just won't be in them and - importantly - won't need to be, and vice versa for people who are...)
In conclusion, technology is good. Information is good. Efficiency is good. Self actualization is better. I think (hope? delude?) that they're all actually taking us somewhere really, really, good.
(This entry was partially motived by a particularly awful modern dance performance I saw over the weekend which was little more than a 50 minute tantrum about "the challenge of communications in the modern age," and offered little in the way of answers, hope, or even a cohesive message deeper than "it's hard to relate to people sometimes...")
The author talks about how this enabled the rise of feminism and the civil rights movement, and I've been particularly interested in his discussion of feminism. I think most of us have gotten the 4th grade story about women's suffrage and how this movement in the early 20th century just sort of arose out of the ether when women decided (arbitrarily?) that it was time to put their collective high-heeled feet down and demand some rights. Then, as we get a bit older, we get into discussions from the 60's and 70's about equality in the workplace as women start to become more and more career-minded.
The book's author has done quite a bit to step back both from this rote description of fact and from the sometimes venomous feminist rhetoric to try and understand what society in general was actually trying to accomplish. This is a bit of a generalization, but his basic argument is that after the war, people were desperate for some kind of peaceful and quiet existence. The infrastructure developed during the war allowed for a more efficient economy, but it also meant that the household was no longer an actual unit of production. This kind of led to a new division of labor that grew from the old patriarchal system wherein men still tried to "produce" and the women's job was then to manage the household - the new center of "consumption." Not only that, but women (as the socially constructed nurturers) were expected to provide quiet comfort and safety for a somewhat shell-shocked society.
This was important on two different levels. The most immediate was that previously, the "glue" holding households together (particularly agrarian ones, but to some extent also ones in urban settings) was the need to survive. Without this dire necessity, people became a lot more introspective - and at the same time, women in particular started feeling (subconsciously?) that perhaps their innate skills weren't being fully used (which is enough to make anyone kind of unhappy.) This combined with the perhaps subtler effect that modern inventions were ensuring that they developed progressively fewer skills contributed to the creation of the "neurotic housewife" - restless, frustrated, and resentful.
Without getting into a debate about technology as useful vs harmful (I address that below), I think it's an interesting train of thought because it's a way to look at feminism without immediately jumping to the conclusion that men are evil, ignorant pigs who hate women. It's certainly true that they created (or helped create) this role for women that led to some pretty unfulfilling situations, but I think it's hard to actually find or assign much malice here.
Rather, it's more of a look at the roles and ideals that we (as a society) tend to create, and how hard it is to keep an actual perspective on what's going on. It also brings up the question of what, exactly, keeps couples (and families) together as life becomes less and less dependent (at least economically) on having a strong family. It's a double edged sword for a lot of people, because while people presumably have more energy to put into social ties (including relationships), they also have a lot more energy to put into self-fulfillment. People talk a lot about the high divorce rate and how hard it is for people to commit to each other, and how this is a reflection of the loosening morals of the modern age, and how marriage and the family won't actually survive in any positive, recognizable sense.
I don't think so. I would actually tend to argue the opposite. I believe, very strongly, that humans are inherently social. I think that our era can be considered as just another transitional period. It makes sense to me that this seemingly "selfish" society where people are intent on self-fulfillment will probably, in the long run, enable people to actually get GOOD at figuring out what makes them happy and fulfilled. As people learn to reach that fulfillment and stop depending on externalities, healthy relationships become the natural result (as opposed to the zero-sum game that a lot of people still seem to experience...) I acknowledge that my argument is still a bit normative, as I'm assuming that most people will find fulfillment in companionship.
Now that I think about it, though - you could even take away that assumption, and allow for some people to be socially oriented, and others not so much. As it becomes more of a choice and less of a structural imperative, I think it will still result in the same end. (Eg, people who are unhappy in relationships just won't be in them and - importantly - won't need to be, and vice versa for people who are...)
In conclusion, technology is good. Information is good. Efficiency is good. Self actualization is better. I think (hope? delude?) that they're all actually taking us somewhere really, really, good.
(This entry was partially motived by a particularly awful modern dance performance I saw over the weekend which was little more than a 50 minute tantrum about "the challenge of communications in the modern age," and offered little in the way of answers, hope, or even a cohesive message deeper than "it's hard to relate to people sometimes...")
02 November 2007
Hacking
The death cough is back.
In other news, they finally released the second homework assignment of the semester in my computer security class. It actually looks like it might be pretty fun; we're supposed to implement a side channel padding attack on some text encrypted using CBC. The only part I'm kind of worried about is writing the code to query their web page...I haven't done much HTML hacking and we've only got a week to get it done.
Finally, I'm trying to decide what to take in the spring. My options, aside from continuing research, include everything from taking no technical classes and finishing out an IR minor, to taking a couple ECE classes (radar imaging + network security) and a couple history classes, to taking a hard CS class (either OS or distributed systems) and a couple history classes.
I'm really tempted towards OS but that's going to be a lot of work...not that I'm not up for it, but I have to make sure I absolutely want to get myself in that deep before I do.
In other news, they finally released the second homework assignment of the semester in my computer security class. It actually looks like it might be pretty fun; we're supposed to implement a side channel padding attack on some text encrypted using CBC. The only part I'm kind of worried about is writing the code to query their web page...I haven't done much HTML hacking and we've only got a week to get it done.
Finally, I'm trying to decide what to take in the spring. My options, aside from continuing research, include everything from taking no technical classes and finishing out an IR minor, to taking a couple ECE classes (radar imaging + network security) and a couple history classes, to taking a hard CS class (either OS or distributed systems) and a couple history classes.
I'm really tempted towards OS but that's going to be a lot of work...not that I'm not up for it, but I have to make sure I absolutely want to get myself in that deep before I do.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)