Home

What’s the point of rating anything? Ok, that’s a little broad, let’s try that again.¹

A friend asked me to think about five star ratings for books, especially on the pseudo public platforms which aggregate ratings. As I thought about that question, I came to a number of potential responses.

First, I think that five is too many options. Really, I think that you only need two, maybe three if you want to be mean. The two would be enjoyed or did not enjoy, and the third could be for did not finish if you wanted to separate books you read all the way through. I would be very happy with just the two ratings, though.

So, what do I do when I’m given five stars? There’s an impulse to only use one and five star ratings² However, that feels lacking. If I’m painting in black and white, I shouldn’t just ignore the shades of grey³ just because they’re new and scary.

So, let’s consider how I could use five stars. One star could be the third bin that I had before, books that I could not finish because they were so poorly written. Thankfully, very few books that I’ve encountered fall into this category, if only because most people who put books out in a public enough form that I find them have a competent grasp on the English language.⁴

Five stars would have to be the absolute favorite books ever written. The kind of books that you can’t stop talking about when you read them, to the point that your friends feel obligated to either end the friendship or read the book themselves.

Even though I like shades of grey, I’ve always admired paintings that work in shades of black.⁵ And so, I can find a use for two stars: books that I didn’t finish because I didn’t enjoy them. These would be books that I’m certain others would enjoy, I just wasn’t one of them when I encountered it.⁶

Four stars would be books that I really liked, but that I haven’t made into a facet of my personality. And, of course, that leaves three stars to hold the rest of the books, the majority of what I read.⁷

But, this is a single dimensional view of the process. For all that⁸ I do think that most books I read fit that scale, it does have some gray areas. Between a book with an astounding concept and fair⁹ execution and a book that brings nothing new to the genre but does what it sets out to perfectly, which deserves a higher score? As I once dove,¹⁰ I then find a use for the fractional stars.¹¹

In diving, two criteria determine your score: how well you did the dive and how hard the dive was. The difficulty of the dive modifies how much the points for your dive are worth. Doing that, I could have a few modifiers and apply them to my base score, putting books in the correct bin as needed.

Of course, this single bin approach to diving works because we can generally agree what the optimal dive looks like.¹² Books, however, serve a variety of purposes, and what makes a book successful in one domain is often what precludes its success in another. Most modern sites are aware of this fact, and allow for tagging of books so that people can remember that one book is a cozy pastoral fantasy¹³ and another is a fast paced exploration of morality.¹⁴

Then, of course, the rubric breaks down. I now, on some level, need to have separate rubrics for each tag and combination of tags. This all ignores the fact¹⁵ that modern sites aggregate the data. Here we come to a new issue.

I, like most people, am aware on some level that my time on this earth is finite. I do not have the time to read every book that comes out in a given month, let alone every book that comes out every month. And so, I rely on the aggregation of other readers in deciding what to read, at least on some level.¹⁶ This comes with a conundrum.

When I rate something with four stars, it falls below a book that I rate with five stars. And so, all the different criteria end up collapsing into that same rating system I introduced at the start of the musing: good¹⁷ or bad¹⁸. I’ve heard it described as five stars means you were ok with it, and everything below five is how much you disliked it, which isn’t that far off from the way that ratings end up playing out.

Draft 1

Yesterday a friend asked me about my feelings on five star scales. As I thought about it a little more, though, I realized that I have a lot of feelings about rating systems in general. Today seems like as good of a place as any to discuss how I feel about them.

Rating systems, especially as they exist now, suffer from the tragedy of the commons.²⁰ Most rating systems are not used for individuals, but for public ranking. That’s an issue, for a lot of reasons.

If I have five stars to rate every book I read, for instance, there are a few ways that I could do it. Assuming that 0 stars is not an option, of course, I only have five categories to place absolutely everything I read. There are few easy books to place.

First, there are the books that I read over and over, finding something different in them each time. The sort of books that we love because they feel able to grow with us just as much as we grow. They, obviously, would get five stars.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are a lot of things that I’ve read that I could not get more than a few pages into²² because there was absolutely no sense of grammar, tense, or spelling. An argument could be made that ratings should be reserved for books I’ve finished, and not for everything I’ve tried to read. Of course, if I have a rating system, I want it to be a record that I can use in the future. Since that’s true, I want to show everything that I’ve attempted to read.

So, that’s one star and five stars taken care of. What about books that I couldn’t get through, just because I didn’t enjoy them? It feels very unfair to put them at the same place as books that I couldn’t read because they were illegible²³, which implies that I should put it at two stars.

Looking at the other direction, there are a lot of books that I enjoyed, but would not plan to reread because I don’t think that there’s anything more that I want to gather from the book.²⁴ Or, there are books that I plan to reread, not because I find that they are thought provoking or help me grow, but because they’re comfortable. Similar to a nice bowl of Kraft brand mac and cheese, sometimes you aren’t looking for the best, simply the most familiar.

And that leaves one star for everything else I read. Three stars would mean that I finished the book, and either didn’t enjoy it, or don’t plan to reread. Honestly, most books that I read should fall here, if we think that stars should be averaged. Then again, if I consider that I know what I like to read, it would make sense that the books I read would generally be above the baseline.

Of course, this creates an immediate tension. Five stars works best if there’s even distribution between categories. For instance, if I put all books that I did not finish as one star, I then have four stars to granulate my feelings, rather than simply three. Others might immediately point out that fractional stars exist.

Honestly, I find that fractional stars start to become worse than useless for me very quickly. Once I get above general feelings of no, sure, yes, and absolutely²⁵, I don’t think it’s fair to grade books on a single axis. How do I compare a book that has fantastic ideas but less than stellar execution with a book that is not as thought provoking but does what it attempts perfectly? As a diver, there’s the voice in my head that says you add modifiers.

For those who don’t know, points in diving come from two, arguably separable places. First, there’s the score that the judges give. The sum of the three middle judges’ scores²⁶ is the first point in scoring. In that regard, it is optimal to make sure that any dive you do is done to the absolute highest score possible.

However, there is a secondary consideration. Each dive is assigned a degree of difficulty. That value is multiplied by the first score to produce the final score for a dive. In that regard, it is optimal to attempt the most difficult dive possible, because it has the highest modifier.

Of course, since diving is a sport judged by humans, there are elements of bias. Dives that land on hands, for instance, tend to be scored more favorably than dives which end on feet. More than that, though, a lot of judges are more forgiving of small errors in more difficult dive, whether because it’s difficult to see every part of a more complex dive or because it just seems more impressive.

Before each meet, a diver therefore needs to consider how best to balance doing a dive well and doing a difficult dive. Returning to the book, it could make sense to make modifiers. Of course, since we’re still²⁷ only on the single person use case for ratings. I don’t need to have hard numbers, especially if I read books fairly often. Having vague ideas of the modifiers I want to apply is probably good enough.

Now, the astute might notice that diving does collapse those two scores into one at the end. I could, in theory, do the same. However, I do not always want to read the same thing. I tend to have around ten books in my currently reading shelf. If we look at them, I can categorize them as²⁸

It isn’t fair to compare a beach read to a literature book, especially because the very things that make one good in its own genre are³¹ what would make it bad in the other genre or what disqualifies it. Now, of course, nearly every book sorting site has ways of adding categories to the books you read. If I then just rank each book with its modifiers and tags, I can sort the tagged books when I want to recommend or reread something. And, to some extent, that could work.

However, there are more than two factors that I want to consider. As much as it kind of feels wrong to say³², the politics that the author espouses in a book are relevant to how much I enjoy them. A book that has an interesting premise, is well written, but concludes with statements like how slavery is fundamentally a good thing, is not something that I want to recommend, if only because I don’t want anyone in my life to think that I think slavery is fundamentally good.³³

So, we get to the point that reducing everything to a single number becomes somewhat meaningless. However, as I alluded to earlier, the danger with ratings is that they do not exist in a void. When I rate something, the ratings generally become somewhat public. Now, there’s a new level of consideration that I have to use.

On the one hand, I want to give accurate and useful ratings for my own purposes. On the other, I also want the authors I like to succeed. I know that a lot of people actively sort to find the highest ranked books within a genre. Truth be told, I cannot say that I am too different.

Of course, this does lead to a bit of a chicken and egg issue. The fact that only high rated books get read means that people are more likely to give anything they like five stars, which means that the quality of anything with less than five stars starts to drop dramatically. On one site I read often, grammar that is nearly impossible to understand is still given a three star by some commenters.³⁴ As this cycle continues, each feeds more and more into the other, making it so that the rating system would really be best served by a simple positive or negative. I remember seeing that Netflix had switched to that, and I think they found it was more effective for what they wanted.

So, right now I’ve only discussed books and rating them on a five point scale.³⁵ I think that most of the lessons that I want to hit on are more or less the same. Time to revise this and see if we can’t make the writing sparkle a little more. Might be worth framing the whole thing as “start from yes no, then grow into five stars, then grow into multi dimension that collapses, then go to tags, then back”, because there’s fun in dramatic irony.

I’ve realized that opening with an overly casual tone helps me to write better. Or, at least, it feels better to me. I wonder if readers feel the same way↩︎
I’m not even getting into fractional stars right now, because I hate them as a concept. If you want ten points, have the scale go to ten. The only reason I’ll give diving a pass on this is that the cards they use are set up in a really pretty pattern to make a number or the number and a half work well. I still think that it would be worthwhile to do integers, but I’ll respect their choice to have smaller numbers↩︎
one of these days I’ll figure out when I was anglicized (almost anglicised wow) into thinking that gray was spelled with an e↩︎
or can hire someone who does↩︎
yes I know that definitionally there is a single shade of black. However, as a person with limited vocabulary, I fully acknowledge that there is a spectrum of color that I would call black even if I can distinguish the hues from each other. I’ve seen some beautiful art that plays with that a a concept↩︎
the idea that what I enjoy is variable will come back later↩︎
realistically, since I know what I like, I have far more fours than threes↩︎
you’re welcome. (if you know what this is a reference to, that message is for you. otherwise feel free to ignore↩︎
I love that fair counts as failing in a lot of places. It’s like words mean nothing. Oh, wait, that’s the theme of the musing today. Never mind↩︎
I just wrote this sentence and I’m already struggling to parse it. Readers that I know exist, is the same true for you?↩︎
much as I am loathe to↩︎
infinite flips and spins executed perfectly↩︎
readers, you know what I’m talking about↩︎
don’t immediately have a book to place to this, but I’m sure that there’s at least a few that I’ve read. Oh, I suppose that the one Discworld book where Vimes gets possessed by the Summoning Dark would be that. Or Mort, or any of the Death Books. Wow look at that↩︎
I keep wanting to use of course, which makes sense, because I’ve thought about this a lot and already written a draft today. If my thoughts aren’t obvious to me right now, that’s an issue↩︎
honestly, these days most of what I read comes from a single recommendation, so I guess this maybe works for me the abstract reader, not me the physical body. Oh, also a lot of books I just pick up in the library because they look interesting (in their titles, since they’re by and large textbooks or academic texts that aren’t in CS, the covers aren’t pretty), which also doesn’t have aggregation information other than implicitly, since the library chose to stock it↩︎
five stars↩︎
one star↩︎
it’s wild that I’m at the point that a chord sheet (I think that’s what they’re called) is enough for me to play a song I know↩︎
ok so I fully recognize that the tragedy of the commons is a completely ahistorical idea, given that commons were famously well maintained by everyone. However, it’s a phrase that works well enough right now↩︎
not that I think any of my readers couldn’t do this on their own, just that it feels like it could be useful for me to do this for myself↩︎
if even that↩︎
is that the right word? kind of feels like it shouldn’t since I have a lot of internal ideas about legibility being a handwriting thing. A quick search tells me it’s understandable, so I guess it works. Weird↩︎
initially I said either, but I can’t think of another reason that I wouldn’t reread a book. Maybe my imagination is just lacking these days↩︎
honestly, the fact that I have a four point scale for life and that these are the four points does say a lot about me↩︎
so in 5 judge situations, they drop the high and low score each time. Since judges aren’t themselves being judged, it doesn’t matter whose score gets dropped in cases where multiple judges give the same score (actually, as I think about it, there was a statistic on some of the report sheets I’ve seen from meets with rankings of judges based on how often their scores were taken. I wonder if someone’s ever explored that). In three judge meets, all scores get taken. I think that you’re not supposed to have even numbers of judges, for the obvious reason↩︎
a little over a thousand words in. This musing will absolutely need a second draft↩︎
using the current shelf plus things I know that I’m planning to start in the next few days↩︎
i.e. books that have merit but are not written to be beach reads↩︎
i.e. books that don’t ask thoughts from me or that I can read while distracted.↩︎
is↩︎
ooh, I should explore why at some point↩︎
I feel like I shouldn’t have to say that, but here we are↩︎
who fully acknowledge that they have trouble parsing the sentences↩︎
and a little bit of diving, but that’s its own different thing↩︎

Flash Fiction Friday

Draft 1

It’s another Friday,¹ which means it’s time for another installment in Flash Fiction Friday Fthinking.² The prompt this week is “A promise to break”. The prompt givers implied that it was a promise which would be broken, but that is not where my mind went.

I’m immediately reminded of a line in Seanan McGuire’s Middlegame, which I don’t remember perfectly, and so will not attempt to quote. The gist of the line, though, is about compelling someone to continue, rather than stop. I’m not totally sure how that reminded me of the prompt, except that I read it as a promise to break something.

Breaking is an inherently dynamic action, which makes it good for me, a person who struggles to have plots, especially in flash fiction. So, if we assume that there’s a promise which involves breaking, what does that require?

On some level, it requires two entities. I suppose that one can, in theory, make a promise to oneself, but that feels not like the story I want to tell here.

I’m debating between realism, fantasy, and sci fi. If scifi, there’s the option of like “when the barrier falls do X”, which is similar for fantasy. Actually, the FFF I’ve written since coming back from hiatus have all been shades of realism. Let’s lean into the fantastic, just for a day.

Given that it’s now very late out, I find that I want to write a sonnet to respond to the prompt, because I don’t really have the energy³ to do a story, the rest of this blog, and muse. As I walked home, though, I ran into an issue. When I think of fantasy poetry, I think of ballads and ballad form, which is in triple meter. I am currently in a sonnet phase, which requires iambic pentameter. Still, there’s nothing saying I can’t just go for it. Will report back when finished.

So, it wasn’t the best sonnet that I’ve ever written, but it certainly wasn’t the worst either. All in all, I think that I’m actually pretty happy with it. I managed to tell a narrative, and that’s really what’s important.

Now, readers of the blog might wonder what kept me from writing all day. In order, there was a department party, a secret santa⁴ reveal, a thesis defense and accompanying celebrations, and then two parties. Each lasted just a little bit longer⁵ than I was expecting, but I don’t regret the time at all. Time with people is never time wasted.

more like Fri-yay, am I right?↩
I’m sure that I could have come up with a better word, but it’s still early and I’m developing a burgeoning caffeine addiction↩
or, quite frankly, the time left in the day↩
officially snowflake, but we’ll ignore that↩
or, in the case of the second party, quite a bit longer↩
because I did it in public both times, the second of which was at the second party, where everyone gathered around and sang silent night↩
there has to be a better way to say that, but I cannot think of it right now, I’m sorry↩

Book Review of Fundamentals of the Faith

Draft 1

I’ve officially accomplished one of my goals for the month, and I’ve finished a book from my currently reading shelf. The book is Fundamentals of the Faith by Peter Kreeft. It’s a just under three hundred page book of apologetics about the Catholic Faith.

Now, there are many ways that I approach these book reviews.¹ One piece that I feel like is a fairly common aspect of them is my explaining how I came to the book. This book, at least, has a fairly interesting story, which makes it one I want to share right now.

Since coming to graduate school, I’ve had the chance to meet a lot of fantastic people. Last year, I helped teach religious education, and chatted a fair amount with one of the teachers for another age group. This past year, she had discerned joining a religious order, and offered me a book of essays. Of course, when someone who radiates holiness² offers you a book, it seems only prudent to read it.

So, of course, I waited almost six months before starting the book. From the first page, though, I was hooked on it. Kreeft strikes the difficult balance between incisive wit and deep broad truth.

As much as I’d meant for this musing to be a long reflection on the book, it’s late enough right now that I would really rather be asleep. A few brief thoughts before that happens:

As a faithful Catholic, he did, of course, profess extra ecclesiam nulla salus. As a faithful Catholic, he did, of course, also point out that what we consider the Church and what the Almighty considers the Church are not always perfectly aligned. In discussing that, he also brought up the parable of the man who keeps hiring more workers to his vineyard.

My entire life, that parable has placed cradle Catholics³ in the position of those hired first. Kreeft inverts that. We, as Catholics, do legitimately have an easier path to salvation⁴ by virtue of knowing exactly what the Lord wants us to do and how He wants to be worshipped. It was striking to consider that, in many regards, I do have an easier time finding Truth than those outside of the faith.

The other most striking aspect of the book was its claim to absolute truth. As a scientist, one of the most fundamental aspects of the field is that no knowledge is certain. Everything is either theory⁵ or law⁶. Nothing is inherently true, and to do science correctly requires, on some level, a willingness to find that everyone else has always been wrong.

In the midst of a culture that is incredibly relativist right now, the fact that Kreeft was so willing to say that not only is the Church true, but it is the Truth, was really striking to me. Also, he continually brought up the fact that the most central teaching of the Church is not being kind to our neighbors or loving G-d, or anything else like that. The most central tenant of our faith is that Jesus Christ, True G-d and True man, was incarnate and died for our sins.⁷

That was something that I’ve found myself coming back to as I consider the book. For most of the modern history of the Church, it was reasonable to assume that everyone was familiar with the explicit teachings of the faith, and so we could discuss the secondary considerations. In a time before relativism, it was valuable to explain how Christianity is like other faiths, who have their own piece of the truth. Nowadays, as the normal belief is that belief systems are more alike than different, the opposite tack is needed.

Anyways, all this to say, I really enjoyed the book, and I feel like I should read more explicitly Catholic creative nonfiction in the next year.

I think. I’m not going to actually fact check that claim right now, though.↩
as she did when last I saw her↩
like me↩
as he claims, at least. I think that there’s something to be said about to whom much is given, much is expected, but that’s a discussion for when I’m more awake↩
hypothesis that has yet to be disproven by data↩
model that works↩
I mean that’s already at least four or five things, but you get what I mean↩
as evidenced by my writing a musing on it↩

On Teaching Crochet

Draft 1

First, I want to apologize for the url for this posting.¹ As much as I do think that it is important for the urls I use to be meaningful, I have more and more begun to realize that I am not yet good at using command line, and so can only find blog posts by the beginning of their names. Since this post is about teaching crochet, it could easily be teaching-crochet. However, since I am pretty sure that I’m going to be reflecting more on the crochet than the teaching, I think that it’s worthwhile for me to have the title focus on crochet, rather than teaching.²

Anyways, today I helped teach some friends and colleagues how to crochet. I hadn’t realized quite how ingrained the muscle memory was for me, but I found that I kept needing to go far slower than I expected to explain a concept. Understanding the way that the yarn moves and needs to move to make crochet work is something that becomes intuitive, but certainly does not begin as such.

We were trying to make granny squares, which may not have been the best idea, in retrospect. The first fifteen or so stitches in a granny square look really ugly even if doing everything correctly, and it can be difficult to understand where mistakes arose when they inevitably do. I got to practice a little bit of classroom management, though, which was really nice.

I’m realizing that I might be the only one who cares about what URL I use, but that’s not going to stop me here↩
and yes, I do realize that this could all be avoided if I learned how to use either sed or grep or most likely both, but I don’t know if I want to learn magic just yet.↩

On Blogging

Draft 1

Wow, five years ago I was posting my theatre final for my blog post. It’s really interesting to me how much my view of this blog has changed since starting it. As Hanukkah starts to wind down,¹ and the semester² does as well, I think it could be fun to explicitly muse on why I’m doing these musings, and why I started initially.

As the header for this site implies, one major reason that I write my blog is because my father does. He had his own reasons for wanting to blog, which, if I remember correctly, include wanting to leave us a legacy and wanting a space to answer questions that he frequently received. Another reason that I initially began this blog was because I wanted my friends and family to be able to keep up with my exploits and adventures while I studied abroad. I think that the only other reason that matters is that I was in a class on diaries which assigned us to keep a diary. I argued³ that blogging is a modern form of diary, one which comes with its own benefits and drawbacks.⁴

Of course, I, like every writer under a commitment, then struggled to find something to write about literally every day.⁵ One way that I got around this⁶ was by posting my different writing assignments to the blog. In some regards, I’ve kept up with that, however slightly. These days, I tend to use the platform to iterate on ideas, but don’t actually put the text of my assignments or other writing into the blog.

One reason is that I don’t know if I want this blog to be widely attached to my name. I’m going to keep it up indefinitely, but that doesn’t mean that I want it to be easily accessed. Right now, it’s actively not SEO⁷ optimized, and there’s no direct link from the main site,⁸ or even my subsection⁹ of the site. It is linked on my GitHub, which a colleague pointed out. Still, I don’t think that’s too much of an issue.

However, the more that direct text is copied between the blog and other sources, the more that they can be tied together. My writing tumblr, for instance, is nominally anonymous. I’d really rather all of my writing stay, at least in theory, separated from my personal self.

Other than that, though, as I keep doing funded research, I am more and more concerned about accidentally leaking private research information or causing our research to get scooped. That’s probably a baseless concern, but it’s easier to stay in a habit of not leaking data than to have to develop it after graduate school.

In part, it’s about holding myself accountable. The daily reflections I post force me to, if only for a second, go through my mental checklist of the day and see how well I did. More than that, though, the daily reflections remind me that I need to do things every day. The number of times that I’ve been getting ready to go to sleep, read something like “did I drink water today?” and then drunk water¹⁰ is almost embarrassingly high.

One portion of the original inspiration that still remains is that I do still want to be more like my father in more ways. He has¹¹ a sign with the quote “no matter how tall I grow, I still look up to my father”¹². I know that he has his own personal relationship to the saying, and that I have mine. Honestly, I’m not sure if I’ve ever told him that the sign has meaning to me.¹³ Writing this lets me feel connected to him in a new way, which is really nice.

A major reason that has evolved from the original inspiration is keeping track of my life. I originally made the blog so that friends and family could theoretically feel like they knew how my hours passed. Looking back on the posts, though, I am reminded of my own memories there, especially the ones that I did not explicitly record.

Not finally but finally for my reflection tonight, I find that writing these musings makes me more reflective. I’ve talked a lot about how I want to improve at craft, but, as I mentioned recently, I also struggle with expressing why I have goals or arguments. I want to be better at the craft of writing so that I can better communicate in whatever endeavors I choose to spend my days following. I want to be better at communicating because I do, deep down, believe that I have insights and ideas that could help the world and lead people to Christ. Honing my craft allows me to be more effective at spreading whatever small scale message I want to spread, in addition to the larger meta goal.

For all that¹⁴, being reflective is an end in itself. As my recent posts have demonstrated¹⁵, my thoughts on a subject can and often do change rapidly and wildly if I take the time to verbalize¹⁶ them. In basically every post I’ve revised recently, the later drafts are not only more polished, but they argue something different, sometimes even contradictory to the earlier drafts. I find that my ability to sort through my thoughts is improving. Even if it were not, though, the fact that I am thinking more deeply is a goal in and of itself.

So, while I don’t think that I’m going to get back into the habit of posting drafts of my class assignments to this blog¹⁷, I do still intend to keep writing these posts. What has this musing done to help with my goals of: being like my father, being more reflective, keeping track of my time, and keeping myself accountable?¹⁸ I don’t really know. Today was an uneventfully eventful day¹⁹, and I²⁰ don’t want to make my private life quite this public yet, and didn’t touch on any of the events that happened. I thought again about why I’m keeping up this blog, which is something that I do at least monthly, and so might not have needed to spend an entire post on.

Oh, I did just think of another reason that I’m writing this blog still. As I’ve mentioned a few times, there’s a site I use to motivate my writing these days. It encourages putting out a large quantity of words, and a daily blog post is a way for me to generate more words.

Sorry, aside aside²¹, I do think that reflecting explicitly is still good, especially since I think that this might be the first time that I actually explicitly stated why I want to get better at writing. And, of course, there’s going to be the daily reflection at the end, which will hopefully help with the final portions.

side note, I forgot how nice it is to write by candlelight. Even though I also have a real lamp, there’s something about the dynamic movement of a burning candle or candles that really makes all writing feel more special. Starting each morning with a burning candle and hand writing a letter is probably something I would do well to bring back↩
allegedly, I’m somewhat removed from it right now↩
apparently somewhat successfully, to the point that I apparently got cited in an article the professor wrote about diary↩
Let’s see if I can’t find it. Aha! It was my fifth post. Hmm I think that I also posted the paper somewhere. Let’s see if we can’t find that too. Aha! there it is. I love that I posted these things publicly, even if I would never dream of doing so now. Then again, I do know that a large number of academics have taken to posting their papers on their sites, so maybe it’s going to come back for me. Where was I?↩
also to find somewhere new to take a photo, but that’s only somewhat tangentially related.↩
a dear friend and reader pointed out that I use the phrase “for all that” very regularly in my writing. I don’t mind that fact, but it’s probably healthy for me to start writing outside of what I’m perfectly comfortable with. Or, rather, (wow, look at that), I think that in my month of working on form, it’s probably in my best interest to interrogate the habits I have when writing (somehow distinct from writing habits)↩
i hate that people call it seo optimized, because that’s search engine optimization optimized, and that feels redundant. Then again, I suppose it’s not technically wrong, so I guess I’ll put the optimized in the real text↩
rebelsky.com, a domain that doesn’t point anywhere↩
which right now just links to music (huh I didn’t realize that I’d made most of the scores I’ve written available there. Might be worth using to point people to when they want to perform my music (read: when I’ve convinced them to perform it))↩
I did refill my water bottle and drink water just now↩
had? I don’t know the last time I saw it, but I’m sure that he didn’t get rid of it↩
or something to that effect↩
dad, if you’re reading this, love you, and also thanks for reading, sorry I’m so behind on yours so often↩
If you were waiting for this to show up in the main text, you’re welcome↩
to me, at least,↩
or whatever you’d call writing as a format↩
not that I really get assignments like that anymore. The only officially prescribed writing I have left for my degree is the thesis and any papers I publish. I know that I’ll need to make handouts for differnet classes that I’m in, but that’s its own can of worms and we’ll see how I feel about doing more or less work once the term begins↩
wow, the meta reflection, look at that↩
in that it could have been a day that fundamentally altered the trajectory of my life in a massive way visible in the moment (not that every day couldn’t, but in that this was a scheduled event) (wow vagueblogging is hard), but did not end up doing so↩
unlike my father, in some regards, at least↩
wow that is a fun and technically grammatical construction↩
wow look at that, this one came out by accident↩
it really did, and I might have to continue doing this↩
random versus grid is always such a tough call↩

Open Mic

Draft 2

I meant to write a simple accounting of my first time playing at an open mic in a few months. My muse, however, wanted to talk about the way that music feels. There is something really special in instruments that are not fixed pitch.

I was chatting with one of the astronomers today about the fact that they had recently acquired a piano. They were amazed at how fun it is to just play, especially when you can do so with friends or family. I don’t disagree, for all that I’m now realizing the very thing that makes piano so instantly rewarding is also what makes learning guitar so much deeper to me.

On a piano, there is a sense of removal from the note you are making. You press a button which activates a hammer which hits a string. There is no way to make the string slightly higher or lower with your strike. Each note is tuned to an exact specification¹. Knowing one chord shows you the hand position for most other chords, and the same is true for scales and notes. It is easy to make any sound appear, which is part of why the ceiling feels so far away from what the average person does. Not even the ceiling, honestly.

This could spiral off into a whole discussion about how the easier it is to make the correct sound on an instrument, the more that mastery is defined in the ability to do far more. However, I don’t want to talk about piano tonight. Instead, let us look at guitar by contrast.

Guitar chords are generally broken into around two categories.² There are open chords, where some strings ring freely while others are fretted individually by specific fingers, and there are barre chords, where a simple chord shape is moved higher up the neck by virtue of pressing the index finger to effectively raise the pitch of the instrument by half tones.

There are around five open chord shapes that tend to be used: C, G, D, A and E.³ D, A, and E can all be major or minor, while C and G can only really be major.

When barring,⁴ by contrast, most of the time only E and A shapes are used. I still find that most barre chords sound more or less the same, as they have the same quality of all strings being fretted.

The five-ish open chords, by contrast, each have their own unique sound profile.⁵ At tonight’s open mic, one of the songs I did was in E minor, and really spent most of its time there. There’s something really magical about the E minor chord, for all that I don’t really use it in that way normally.

I’ve noticed that with many instruments, the lowest note that they can reasonably play is a little more powerful than the rest. On cello, when playing the open C string, the entire instrument seems to vibrate. On guitar, every string shares some resonance with the low E string. If you pluck and silence it, the upper two strings will continue sounding, since they lie exactly on its harmonic series.

E minor is also the triad that requires the fewest alterations from the way that the guitar is tuned. As someone who’s started to explore DADGAD and other open tunings, there is something really inspiring about a droning note and open guitar strings. With E minor, you get both the benefit of many open strings and the benefit of having the lowest note sounding.

Just by altering which strings you emphasize on strokes, the sound can go from dark and brooding to an almost angry beat, like something calling warriors to arms. I hope that I remember this as I start writing music again, because I think that there’s absolutely a place in my album for a driven beat song.

Draft 1

Well, time always passes. Somehow, it’s been just over 4 months since the last time that I went to an open mic. Some might be asking why, a mere ten days before the longest night of the year, I chose to play there again.

This past Saturday, I was at the bar for an unrelated reason, and the waiter mentioned that the open mics had moved to be much earlier. One reason that I had stopped going was the fact that I generally try to get to bed somewhere around 9 most nights, and the open mic did not start before then. As a result, I was forced to choose between playing in public and getting sleep. Nowadays, though, the open mic has been moved to start closer to seven or eight, depending on the week. That in mind, I showed up very early, had a few tacos, and then played a set.

I wish that I could say the entire set went flawlessly. Or, failing that, I wish that I could say something went so terribly wrong that I can tell stories about it for ages to come. Alas, neither happened. My guitar wasn’t getting picked up, for whatever reason⁶, and so I had a brief moment of panic. Thankfully, the man who runs the open mics lent me his guitar, and I was off to go.

I started with an original.⁷ Ashes went really well, and I didn’t miss the intro to the chorus like I tend to. Still, applause was somewhat muted for it.

Since it’s been a while since my last open mic⁸, I went with a great standby and did Maid on the Shore. I really started to get into my stride during that song, and I saw at least a few people tapping along to the song, which is always nice. The emcee⁹ said that I had time for one more song, and I knew just what to do. It’s nearly Christmas, so I did one of my favorite Advent/ Christmas songs, The Angel Gabriel.¹⁰ It went well, though the fact that I was playing it on a different guitar than normal meant that it did not go quite as well as normal. Still, it was really fun, and I got even more applause for my final song. A few people complimented me after my set, which is always nice.

I forgot how much more fun guitar is with fresh strings. I just put them on yesterday, and it’s amazing how much better the tone is, and how much better my fingers seem to move. More than that, though, it is as though the guitar pulls more sound out of my voice.

In general, I have noticed that I’m starting to like my singing voice more lately. I think that a lot of it is because of an off handed comment that my choir director made. He said that in one of the songs we did, we should really lean into the baritone growl. I had forgotten about that vocal register, and I do really think that it’s where my tone is best, at least from the inside. Given that the open mic plays the amp slightly back at the performer, though, I do think that it also sounds at least a little better from the outside.

I forgot how much I love the E minor chord on the guitar. There’s something really nice about being able to just drone on the low string, bass sound droning as your own voice melds into the tone. The sound becomes almost rhythmic, starting to sound less like a pitch and more like a pitched percussion. Then, just when the note feels like the only sound that your guitar could make, you change chords.

The A minor chord that follows suddenly feels electric. The energy rises, and you barre¹¹ up to B minor. As you reach the peak of the line, the rhythmic low E drone comes back, and you’ve returned to E minor. All that to say, I really love the setting of The Angel Gabriel I found. It was originally in the key of A minor, but I transposed it down a fifth to E minor.

I’m more and more understanding what a visiting composer once told me. He said that every interval has a particular emotion attached to it. While I don’t know if I’ll ever get there, or even get to the point of specific keys having feelings on fixed pitch instruments like harp or piano, I’m starting to get there on guitar.

E minor, as mentioned, feels resonant and droning. The fact that only two notes are fretted, and both are fretted to octaves of notes that are already sounded probably helps a lot.

E major, by contrast, feels aggressive and intense. It’s the sound of beating drums, striving and preparing for a fight.

G major feels open. It reminds me of the open prairie as a lone voice sings about the stark beauty of the land.

C major is hopefully happy. It is the sound of a young protest singer, one who still believes in his country.

A minor is not melancholy, for all that the word almost fits. It is not quite bittersweet. It’s the ache of absence, the pain that comes only because of a joy that has been taken.

D major uplifts. It reminds the listener that there’s something they need to be moving towards.¹²

All this to say, I think that the music I write needs to start focusing on E minor for the more intense portions, because there’s an intensity to the low open E that I just cannot match with the other chords.

or left to detune, as it may be↩︎
I’m ignoring power chords which tend to be subsets of barre chords, and I know that Jazz and other traditions might have their own way of breaking it down. For the kind of music I make and the people I talk to, though, the categories are fairly valid.↩︎
wow look at that nice circle of fifths↩︎
I don’t think that it’s barreing, and spell check seems to agree with me↩︎
this is, of course, ignoring the fact that I know of at least two variations for C and G major that have different sounds, for all that they do not change anything about the explicit character of the chord. As an example, a variation of the G chord has the B string fretted to the third fret, turning it into a D. This means that the only third in the chord is in the upper A string, which means that a treble focused strum turns into a power chord.↩︎
I think that the battery might have died or that I somehow put it in wrong, will troubleshoot soon↩︎
I still haven’t given most of my songs names, but I think Ashes will be what I call it today. I’m sure that I’ve given it other names, and until I record and publish it, it will continue to get more names as needed↩︎
which a lot of people did comment on, which was kind of nice. It’s nice to be recognized and remembered↩︎
I love that master of ceremonies got initialized to m c got extended to emcee↩︎
an apparently less well known one, which is strange.↩︎
I hate that it’s spelled like this↩︎
why yes, the music I play does tend to have a single sharp in its key signature, how did you know?↩︎

Reflections on Today’s Gospel

Draft 1

I know that I try to have a deep and meaningful¹ reflection about the Gospel each week, but I find that my mind isn’t really catching on any of the many available hooks that the readings are filled with. As seems to be my custom, there is a part of the reading that I struggle with.

In the first reading, we hear the Prophet Isaiah say that a voice cries out to prepare a way in the desert.² In the Gospel, however, we are told that the Prophet Isaiah says that a voice in the desert cries out.³ Interestingly, both happen in the third verse of the chapter, for all that the first happens in the fortieth chapter and the other in the first chapter.

Now, what about this bothers me, especially as a person who knows that ancient languages had a much different approach to punctuation than modern people do? Primarily, it’s the fact that if there was no punctuation, we⁴ could have made the two line up. But, we didn’t.

I’m sure that there’s some deep spiritual meaning for this, for all that I cannot find it. The commentary on the USCCB website notes that, despite claiming to be a direct quote from Isaiah, there are references to other prophets’ prophesies.⁵

So, let’s take the readings where I’m at today. The first reading reminds us that struggles are both temporary and meant as purification. Any hardship we endure now is either to cleanse us from some past wrong or⁶ to prepare us for some future glory.

One part I find interesting is the idea that the geography of the world is something less than perfect. There is a heresy that became popular near the Enlightenment⁷ known as the Watchmaker G-d. This heresy states that, much like a watchmaker, who carefully sets gears and winds a watch before stepping away, the Lord created the universe, along with all of its laws, and then stepped back to watch and see what happened.

Of course, as a scientist, I believe something similar. As a Catholic, though, there is room for nuance, which I find very important. So, where’s the nuance?

First, an obvious contradiction to the Watchmaker⁸ is the existence of miracles. The water turning into wine or Our Lord’s rising from the dead cannot happen without active intervention. Even in the modern day, miracles are still performed wherever the Lord sees that it would most help the faithful.⁹ It goes deeper than that, though.

One thing that the Watchmaker heresy implies, however accidentally, is the preexistence of nature. A watchmaker does not conjure the gears and hands of a watch from the formless void. He may shape them from metal, but even the ore he gets comes from some other cause. In contrast, the Lord created the universe from nothing.

So, it’s an imperfect metaphor at best. All metaphors are, which is why they’re symbolic rather than literal. What else is wrong with the Watchmaker?

The crucial issue in the Watchmaker heresy is the idea that the Lord stopped. When a watchmaker finishes his work, the watch is done, and he can sell it or give it away. Without the Lord constantly willing reality to remain, we would cease. At every moment of every day, we are sustained and continued solely through Love. Our Creator is not some dispassionate worker toiling for His pay. Our Creator made us with Love, from Love, and for Love.

Returning to the readings, we see an oblique reference to this in a letter from the first Pope. St. Peter reminds us that, though we experience life in something resembling a linear fashion¹⁰, the Lord does not. For Him who is outside of time, everything happens as it should. It is a hard concept to imagine, for all that I know that it’s essential for mathematicians, who often visualize high dimensional spaces.

I’m reminded of a movie¹¹ called Flatland. In it, a two dimensional creature is exposed to the concept of three dimensions, in part by seeing zero and one dimensional existence. Thinking of it like that helps me resolve the whole “how does Free Will work when G-d knows every thought I’ve had before I have it?” How, exactly, it works with miracles or the Divine Revelation, which explicitly happened to a specific people at a specific time, though, remains a mystery. For all that I can trust that it is true, I would not be able to give a reasoned defense should that be someone’s stumbling block to joining the Church.

So, where are we? The readings appear to contradict themselves, for all that I know that any punctuation we add is a modern decision. The universe is not a machine created by someone thoughtless, but a treasured love of Love Himself. Time is an illusion, albeit one we are bound to.

at least to me↩︎
paraphrase of Is 40: 3a↩︎
paraphrase of Mk 1: 3a↩︎
St. Jerome translating to the Vulgate, which I think does have punctuation, or any of the people translating to English↩︎
also, apparently Malachai was the penultimate prophet, since he was the last until John the Baptist. I should really have known that, since it seems like an important fact↩︎
probably and, if we’re being real↩︎
wow there’s a lot of power in getting to choose the name of your movement↩︎
capitalized because it’s still a way, however imperfect, of referring to the Divine↩︎
I think? Honestly, why miracles happen is a mystery to me. If not for the fact that I think they might be a Mystery, I would probably be more bothered by that fact↩︎
relativity is the reason for resembling, to say nothing of the whole field of cognitive science which tells us that our experience of passing seconds is not objective↩︎
and the book the movie is based on, but I don’t have as close a relationship or dear a memory with the book↩︎
maybe just checked out one and reserved one, we’ll see.↩︎

On Editing

Draft 3

Irish legend says that the airs¹ to the most striking and memorable Irish folk songs were not composed, but discovered. Considering it that way, editing makes far more sense.

If what I write is not, in fact, a creation but a discovery, then editing makes complete sense. The words on the page are not the discovery, but my pale imitation of them. Like a sculptor with clay, I can remove or add material, shifting it as I need until I reach the shape that I see in my vision.

For all that I can imagine my writing as that, I tend not to. It feels a little too pretentious to say that the fun web serial I write about a boy wandering through life is some profound gift from the cosmos.² I tend to think of my writing as the words that I put on a page.

When I think of writing in that way, editing becomes something hard. Deleting words is exactly destroying something I’ve created. Adding words is grafting something onto a creation.

As I’ve mused about editing over these past drafts, my own feelings on the art have changed. I think that my issue with editing stems directly from the fact that I consider the writing to be the action, rather than the mode of transportation. My goal is not to put specific words on a page, but to convey a narrative.

Of course, that becomes an issue of its own. If I do not know what narrative I’m trying to convey, how can I know which words belong? There are some obvious choices, such as avoiding cliche. Even if I know what I’m trying to convey, I also need to take a step even further back to consider why I’m trying to convey what I’m trying to say, and why via writing. Doing that takes far more mental effort than simply dumping words on a page and seeing where the story takes me.

And, I do not dislike the places that the story and my mind, less strictly filtered, tend to roam. I suppose that there’s something to be said for shaping what I have. When I see a piece of wood that kind of resembles a tiger, carving it to make it more closely resemble that shape is an obvious choice.

And so, I suppose that the answer has been in front of me this entire time. To become better at editing, I need to become better at divorcing my art from myself as artist. I need to see what I create as nothing but how well it communicates what I want it to say and who I want to say it to. If my goals have changed between drafts, it’s only reasonable that the words and structure would need to as well.³ Daily Reflection:

Draft 2.1 Started a sentence that went too long

If we take a moment to imagine writing not as creating, exercising some small sliver of the Divine in what we do, and instead consider it like the early Irish considered song: something found.

Draft 2

I find it kind of funny that what really seems to separate the mediocre writers from the good writers from the great writers is not writing. Having listened to early versions of Piano Man, it is nothing like the final song that was released. Terry Pratchett famously rewrote his books over and over until each word was what he wanted. Editing is what separates the bad from the good writers.

It’s obvious once stated, of course. No one creates perfection constantly without needing to toss away words that don’t fit, or redirect a thought that’s strayed a little too far. However, it does feel strange that there is an entire art, editing, which is so vital to proper writing.

I think of the different activities that I do a lot.⁵ It’s a bit of an issue, because there isn’t really a way that editing is like anything except itself.

In music, I do occasionally delete lines that I’ve written. Of course, that is also editing. Playing music, however, I never unplay a note.

In reading, I can never forget having read a word. In fact, doing so would be actively harmful towards my ability to understand a text.

Maybe that’s why I have such trouble with editing. Probably because I analogize my different crafts so much, it’s become easier and easier for me to do so.

Working off of a recipe is like reading sheet music. Improvising a song is like trying a crochet project off of vague feelings. Writing something is like cooking a meal. Even when constrained, I have some freedom in what I choose to do.

Editing is like trimming the fat off of a roast before cooking, so that you don’t have to deal with silver skin. But, you don’t add more meat⁶.

Editing is like practicing a difficult section of music until it flows. But, you don’t remove difficult notes⁷ when they don’t feel right, you play until they do.

Editing is like revising a pattern. Sure, that’s true, but that’s like saying the sky is like the air.

Of course, at this point, I kind of feel like I’m in a shifting goalposts meets no true scotsman land. If it feels like editing in a skill, I lump it into the craft of editing. Otherwise, whatever it is clearly is not editing.

This doesn’t even get into the whole issue of what the difference is between revising and editing and redrafting.

Draft 1

One of the hardest parts of writing is editing. It, like so much of life, requires balance and precision. Encouraging the voice in your head to edit too much or too quickly, and I⁸ find that it becomes nearly impossible to get anything down onto the page. On the other hand, I do know that it is an essential skill to develop. For all that my ability to write words well on the first attempt continues to grow, it has not made the writing I put out as much better.

A great analogy comes from music.⁹ Some might think that I’m going to say that writing is like writing music and revising is like revising music. That would be fun, but no.

Writing, generating new content, is like sight reading. It’s one of the most impressive things to do in front of someone, and in many respects, it is crucial to development as an artist. To become better at sight reading, the first thing to do is just try sight reading.

This gets its own analogy.¹⁰ I’ve seen a lot of lifting advice on the internet, describing exactly how best to optimize every second of one’s life around the gym. However, one piece of advice has stuck with me.

If you’re just starting lifting, as long as what you do is not actively wrong, it’s going to be more or less as effective as any other workout. Whether one should squat or leg press is a valid question, but if you do not have a history of lifting, doing either will help a lot. Only once plateauing does it really matter exactly how many reps and of what weight for how many sets on what workout you do.

Music is a similar way. For most people, the best way to get better at sight reading is to sight read. Honestly, for most people, the best way to get better at music is just to make music. I’ve blogged about that before, though it has been almost five years. My relationship with practice has changed a fair amount, which is probably fair, given that I no longer study music as an explicit part of my studies.

Anyways, I know without a doubt that I am past that point as a musician generally, for all that I am not past that point on every instrument.¹¹ At this point, the way that I grow as a musician is by working on skills, and working intentionally. If we tie this directly to sight reading, I’m at the point in my musical career where I would benefit a lot from just practicing scales and common chord progressions, since that’s the basis of most compositions, and therefore makes it easier to sight read.

An, returning to the real point of this musing, right now I know that, while continuing to generate new words will still help me incrementally, right now I need to really focus on my craft. Now, there are a few ways that I’m trying to do so.

First, I’m trying to remember sensory cues as I write my fiction. I know that, among all of the many ways that my writing is lacking, that is the one that I am most prone to.

Second, I’m writing more poetry again. That, at a base level, forces me to remember how to construct a narrative in a limited number of words. It also makes me incredibly aware of the specific cadence of the words that I use, as well as their ability to rhyme. Though rhyming may not be incredibly necessary to my prose writing, cadence certainly is.

Third, as you might have noticed, I’m editing my writing more. I think that I might be starting to go too far, if my FFF from yesterday is any indication. I tried to start the story at least a dozen times, giving up within a few sentences.

Then again, a voice reminds me right now, none of the first dozen ways that I wanted to start a story were where I ended up. I took a few cute phrases or images from the first sentences into the next one. I am still worried that I’m getting to the point of writer’s block again, my internal editor shutting down any prose I try to write.

I’m reminded of some advice from the creator of NaNoWriMo. They recommend hiding your internal editor for the month, accepting that whatever you write may or may not be absolute garbage. I manage to do that, maybe too well.

However, there is a time for planting, and a time for harvesting. There is also, crucially in nearly every gardening book I’ve read¹², a time for weeding, and a time to decide what you want to plant. As a writer, finding time to write is not the biggest struggle for me. It’s important to me, and I’ve gotten better about prioritizing it and not feeling guilty for doing so.

As a writer, finding opportunities to share my writing hasn’t been particularly difficult. I have my web serial, which lots of people seem to enjoy, and I have a few friends who read my blog and sonnets. That’s most of the writing I do, and it’s nice that it finds a home.

The time to decide what to write isn’t even something I really struggle with. For all that I often enough have trouble coming up with a musing idea, that’s never a problem that lasts more than like 4 minutes of trying to write something. At a step higher, I know that I need to write my web serial, my blog, and my sonnets.

And, while I could strain the metaphor further, talking about soil pH and making sure that you plant proper plants where they will receive ideal sunlight, to say nothing about seasonal considerations¹³, I will instead keep the metaphor relatively plain. Part of weeding, at least the way it exists in my mind, is also pruning. A fruit tree will grow more fruit, somehow, when its branches are effectively pruned. In theory, the same is true of writing.

Deleting words can make the sentence clearer, and can make what you are trying to say clearer. The book on writing well¹⁴ that I’m reading does focus on that a lot. The point of writing is connection. If the words you wrote do not serve to convey what you are trying to say, then they must go, just like the beautiful rosebud that needs to be snipped because it’s out of alignment.

So, why am I concerned? Well, if editing is like pruning¹⁵, then right now I’m worried that I might start pruning too far. The work might start to falter, unable to get the nutrients it needs.¹⁶

melodies↩
as I write that sentence though, I do have to remember my historic takes, which do include anything creative as being a small mirror of the Creator, and then it feels wrong to say that anything I craft does not, on some level, come to me as a gift↩
that’s really what they call meta writing wow. I’m honestly really proud of that sentence↩
the mic starting at 9 is difficult when my bed time is like 9:20↩
unsurprisingly, since I, you know, do them, and generally think a lot↩
or, at least, I don’t add more meat. If you use meat glue, that’s between you and the mirror↩
or, at least, you shouldn’t.↩
there’s probably something wrong with the sudden person shift, but I am fine with it↩
I was reminded of the fact that I have not touched my instruments in far too long today, and so that might be why it’s on my mind right now↩
which I should get rid of in the future drafts? maybe? This musing can ramble on and I’m actually ok with that↩
ope I’m also probably near that point as a lifter, but less so. Hmm, actually I’m probably not right now. For all that I know about what weight I can do, it’s not enough of a routine for me to feel like I’m plateauing yet↩
Yes, the number is far greater than one, no I don’t want to explain why, no it wasn’t just a phase (I think that it was like one a year for a while)↩
to name just a few↩
hah, get it↩
yes, I’ve changed the metaphor, deal with it↩
I’ve lost control of the metaphor. Whoops↩

Flash Fiction Friday

Draft 1

Another Friday means another FFF! This week’s theme is “Fool me once,” and I have so many different ways to interpret that prompt. Most of the ways that I can consider this phrase being used are in a negative context.

Even the positive contexts tend to still have an edge of lying to them, as you might expect from the fact that there’s absolutely an implication of misleading. As someone who enjoys a good verbal puzzle, though, there should be a way to make this work. I think that I’m going to try for fiction again, and this time I’m going to write drafts of it until I run out of time this morning writing session.¹

Alright, time to do a retrospective on the whole project. It was really interesting the way that my mind took the question. At first, I kept wanting to make the prose explicitly poetic, which was really not the goal.

I iterated through a number of ways to consider tricking as a positive. At first, I took it as like the simple sleights of hand that you can do to amuse a child. Somehow, though, none of those felt right. Maybe it’s because they were first person, and maybe it’s because I just didn’t like them.

I left small reflections to myself after each attempt failed. One still sticks out to me, “I’m thinking something about how joy is an illusion I choose to believe in.” That really resonated as what I wanted to write about today.

From there, it was a bunch of iterations to pick the main character², the premise³, and the tense. I ended up choosing present tense, which I think gives the fiction something of a dreamy feel. There’s something really strange about writing in the present tense. Normally, everything happens in the past, and the narrative records that. In present tense, though, each action is passing by as you read it.⁴

An unnamed and undescribed⁵ man is sad and walking down the street. He encounters a stranger, who decides that they know each other. Eventually,⁶ the lie is revealed, and the two continue speaking. As the story ends, each of the physical descriptors from the opening lines are repeated, but the emotional connections have changed.

Rather than trudging⁷ through slush and grey ice, he walks through fallen snow. I think that I like it, for all that it’s still a little more of a vignette than I might want. It’s only 360 or so words, so I do technically have plenty of space if I want to change it, but I don’t think that I want to add anything more. I’ve rewritten the ending, and now it feels fine.

Honestly, I think that one issue I have is with flash fiction going up to a thousand words. This musing is currently about five hundred. A story that has twice as many words as this feels like it’s a markedly different project, for all that I should probably try to get back into writing longer flash fictions. I’ve now posted this story, so there’s nothing I can really do to change it. It feels good to put my writing out, for all that I have now been falling behind on Jeb.

I reserve the right to work on the project more than this amount, but I will absolutely spend at least the next forty minutes working↩
an unnamed he↩
discussed later↩
and they call it meta writing↩
Shoot! I need to work on physical cues. Hold on, going to revise the story one more time↩
like 50 words later. This fiction is not long↩
which wow what a fantastic word↩
lying? I always forget which is which↩
in that it was incredibly emotionally charged and I felt a deep connection to it↩
Happy Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception by the way↩

On Conclusions

Draft 2

Yesterday’s musing finally showed me what my greatest struggle has always been as a writer, especially a persuasive writer: I don’t know how to write conclusions. Let’s look at the musing as a case study.

I had an idea: science as mysticism. I explored what that could mean, at least in a few variations. I would like to think that I even got so far as maybe showing that science and mysticism are, on some level, at least, reflections of the same thing. I stopped before saying what that meant though.

As I’ve worked through this draft, I think that where the musing needed to go was one step further. The point of the musing was that if science is mysticism, then we can approach truths we know about mysticism to science. That is, in contrast to the post modern ideal of truth as fundamentally a human¹ construction, I believe that truths are something we uncover that point to a greater truth. I’m not sure whether the word I’m looking for is epistemology or metaphysics, but I know that there is a word for method of determining truth. Whatever that word is, every one is fundamentally limited, because it relies on defining truth in a way that cannot work for all facts.

Mathematics, being applied philosophy, explains this well. It can be demonstrated² that there are always facts that cannot be solved for within a given set of axioms. One of those facts is the validity of the set itself.³ We can see that with science as a whole.

Science works because the universe behaves the same way from day to day. Science cannot prove that this is true.⁴

Because science can only answer questions about measurables, it can obscure just as much as it can illuminate.⁵ An issue that I’ve noticed, especially among non religious and non spiritual⁶ is a tendency towards scientism, solipsism, postmodernism,⁷ or nihilism. All four⁸ are understandable, for all that I find each view point fundamentally wrong.⁹

What’s wrong with each of them, and how does tying science to mysticism help, though?¹⁰ Great question, me. Let’s go through and find out.

Scientism is the claim that only things which are measurable and material are real. How do concepts like justice work under this viewpoint?¹¹ As is pointed out in a Discworld book, if you grind the universe into a fine powder and run it through an atomic sieve, you will not find a single mote of justice.

Scientism has a fairly strong defense to justice, however. We can demonstrate that whatever variable we seek to maximize¹² is increased or decreased by varying certain conditions. The visual that there are punishments to crimes leads to a reduction of crime.¹³

By tying science to mysticism, however, this worldview is untenable. We cannot prove what happens after death with rigorous experimentation. Spiritual truths cannot be measured with a mass spectrometer.

Second is solipsism. I don’t actually know many people who will verbally admit to this view, for all that it’s fundamental to modern understandings of morality and really anything. Solipsism tells us that, as Descartes points out, the only thing we can know is our own mind. Everything else could be a figment of our imaginations or anything else. I have no clue how justice works in solipsism.

Mysticism tells us that there is, in fact, fundamental truth outside of self. At its core, mysticism is removal of self from the body, if only for a moment.

Third, postmodernism. There are any number of definitions for postmodernism¹⁴, but most boil down to a disbelief in absolute truth. Reality is what we agree upon, and truth claims are fundamentally claims of power.¹⁵ Justice works because those in power convince the rest of us that society functions better when we follow the rules and conventions.

To be fair, mysticism isn’t really needed to combat postmodernism. The fact that science can measure objectively is itself an argument. By tying it to mysticism, though, we are able to get to the root of the postmodern argument. Mysticism is connection with the Divine. Postmodernism fundamentally relies on the absence of anything divine.

Finally, we have nihilism. Honestly, as a Christian, nihilism is a fairly compelling argument. As far as everything we can measure suggests, the universe ultimately runs independently of any observation, and in time will die. The grandest human accomplishments will die when our planet does, and in time every piece of every one of us will become iron, totally inert and dead in a universe as cold and static as the grave.¹⁶

Mysticism, which reminds that the universe is not an object of itself, but is an object lovingly and constantly sustained by its Creator, reminds us that the small and everyday actions we take do have cosmic importance.

Anyways, I think that going to here could have been a good thing in the previous musing, for all that I still think it doesn’t go far enough. So what, other worldviews are wrong? I already believed that before writing this musing, and I don’t think that these arguments are any more convincing than the others against the views. What is actionable about tying science to mysticism?

I think that what I really needed to do is have a “what does this mean for the reader.”¹⁷ There’s an idea floating around in my head that I cannot quite get to crystallize.

I think that it’s something about the importance of doing scientific work, as it brings us closer to G-d. I think there’s also something in it about the humility we need to have as researchers.¹⁸ In most of the musing, I tried to convince that mysticism is like science. Flipping the paradigm, though, gives the conclusion.

Mystics speak of how immensely small they are in relation to He who Created us. As a scientist, I need to remember that any revelation I have in my work is just as much a function of the Divine as any holy apparition.¹⁹ I am not creating knowledge, I am little more than a child who has been gently led to the smallest trickle of the truth. I am led by someone who loves me and knows that the rushing torrents of Truth are too much for me right now, and I need to slowly be coaxed towards them.

What does this mean for concluding my musings in general, though? As we pull back from the case study, I see that I really only do about half of the plotting for a musing that I need to. I say what I have for an idea, but I don’t connect it to a change in worldview. How should my worldview change here?²⁰

Edit: Upon reflecting after writing this but before posting, I think there’s a major element of fear. The more that I try to finalize an argument, the more of myself I put in it, and the more that I worry about someone disagreeing with my take.

Draft 1

Yesterday’s musing reminded me of something that I’ve struggled with in my writing. I don’t know if it’s a recent change, or whether it’s just something that I didn’t care about in the past. Regardless, I’ve realized that I struggle with conclusions.

Let’s look at yesterday’s musing as a sample case. I had an idea: science is mysticism. I was able to explore how I felt like the two could be connected. That is, I worked backwards from the thesis, giving background.

Once I found the background, though, I gave up. Or, rather, I found that I had nothing else to say. What does it mean if mysticism and science are fundamentally the same? One reader summed it up best “you stopped just when the musing was starting to get good.”

As I think about the issue, I realize it’s something that I consider almost fundamental to the way that I view the world. Justifications for research have always seemed strange to me. After all, what reason do we really need for learning something more than “we didn’t know the answer to this, and now we do”? Most people do not agree with that take, however, and since I’m getting to the point in my life where I need to start putting out research for the broader public, it’s probably worthwhile to think about what the overall goal of anything I do is.

So, let’s return to the case study.²¹ What does linking science to mysticism do? I find that I’m immediately struck with the fact that there’s not one single answer²² that satisfies. I think that I tend to take the easy way out when there are a plethora of potential options. Rather than explore a single path, acknowledging that I will necessarily not travel down the other trails of answers, I simply point the reader and myself to a fork in the road and say “go forth and explore.”

So, let’s try to combat that, at least a little. What are some things that viewing science and mysticism as two manifestations of the same experience does or could do?

Taking a step back, I do think that’s my fundamental issue. Whenever I write something, at least part of my goal is changing my reader’s worldview. For all that I can and do often just walk away from hearing about an interesting argument and immediately start thinking of what the two sides could claim, I know that this is not a standard response.²⁵

I think that my goal in the case study is explicitly having the reader treat science and mysticism as reflections of the same fact: that all truths point to Truth, and that we discover truth, rather than creating it. That’s a much larger argument than anything I proposed above, though, and I can see why I shied away, however internally from trying to write it. For all that I personally know and believe it’s better to do something badly than to not attempt something at all, I do find that I²⁶ instinctively believe that it’s better to not fail than to try and fail.

I’m currently listening to a lot of BreadTube²⁷ and reading books that touch on modern theories of knowledge. Most modern theories of knowledge, as best as I understand the political trends, follow from Foucault. Now, as someone with no real formal training in philosophy, excuse me if this is wrong, but the crux of Foucault’s arguments are that knowledge and power are fundamentally inseparable. There is not Truth, only acceptance of ideas. I think that the musing was a direct response to those claims, at least in part. While a lot of what we do, think, believe, and say is socially constructed, I do still fundamentally believe in universal truth.

Once again, let’s refocus on the case study. I think that it might be worthwhile to look at it the same way that I’ve been trained to look at musical pieces.²⁸ First, what is the explicitly stated goal of the work?

I’m still not sure, but I think that it was an affirmation of the universality of truth. That feels somewhat true, but not fully.

I also don’t know if I’ve ever been good at this method of looking at pieces, for all that I really enjoy seeing others do it.

So, twelve hundred words later, where am I?²⁹ I think that I have issues writing conclusions in large part because I don’t know what my implicit goals are for a work, and I’m not even always sure what my explicit goals are for a work. Most of the time I content myself with a meta goal.³⁰

I’ve had an argument with myself in the past about how objective morality or truth when you believe in an Almighty Creator is still subjective, just with a definitionally correct subject. For that reason, given that I do believe everything was created, it feels at least a little wrong to say that truth is not on any level constructed.↩
Godel did it most famously, and others have followed↩
I think. Mathematicians and philosophers, please feel free to correct this take if it is incorrect.↩
e.g. if I claim that everything is constantly doubling in size, there is no way to disprove it, since everything is measured based on a referent. One level deeper, if we do not believe that memory is real, then there is nothing to say that whatever we record the speed of light as cannot change from day to day. I may remember it as 3e8 m/s, but that might just be because, in this split second, it is. Whatever we measure it as next might retroactively have always been true. Reality being, well, real, is a presupposition of science. Ope I’m realizing now that this should have been maintext, not footnote.↩
I unfortunately walked away from this musing after the above line to do other stuff, and have now forgotten what my goal was in saying that. Let’s try to reconstruct. Ooh ok yes the whole scientism↩
initially this said friends, but I realized that’s both inaccurate and a little offensive. the friends I have who hold any of these views have a much more nuanced understanding than I’m fighting here. Is this tilting at windmills and fighting strawmen? probably.↩
I wish that postmodernism started with an s↩
initially three, but then I remembered that nihilism exists↩
and unlike as a postmodernist, I can still make truth claims↩
at what point does this musing cease to be a reflection on conclusions and start simply being the next draft of the musing? I think as long as I conclude (hah) this musing with an overall reflection on concluding, I should be fine↩
immediate disclaimer: I will be proposing my own solution to the questions based on my own views and understandings. As all three worldviews I hold are held by many people with their own diverse views and understandings, they may have different answers to the questions. If they truly do believe in the worldview, their answers are more valid than mine for how they explain a concept↩
life expectancy, earning power, perceived happiness↩
is the argument, not necessarily true. I think I remember seeing somewhere that more intense punishments don’t actually reduce crime. How that works with the whole, “free will doesn’t exist” that goes along with the concept, I’m not entirely sure.↩
I promise that some of my jokes are good↩
I think I mentioned yesterday in a footnote that I don’t actually disagree with this claim, it’s just that an omnipotent being making a claim of truth has, definitionally, the power needed to make that material reality↩
the metaphorical grave.↩
anyone who’s ever been in charge of reading my writing, I apologize that it took me fully a quarter century to learn this fact↩
ope, yeah, there it is. Looks like I have a conclusion ready↩
wow that feels maybe blasphemous. Find a better phrasing↩
I think that’s an improvement, yeah.↩
that’s the word. I should replace sample case in the above if I redraft this musing↩
in that there’s many answers that could work, not that an answer does not exist at all↩
or at least people claim that science agrees with them. The fact that no political side seems to actually care about science except as a political cudgel is a far larger issue, and not really one at play here.↩
other than scientism, which says that there are only observables. I suppose that complete denial of the spiritual is a full metaphysics, but it’s not an interesting one to me.↩
some call it being a devil’s advocate, with more or less respect for the choice.↩
like everyone, being fair to myself↩
a term often used to describe the left leaning parts of pseudo academic youtube. There’s probably a better definition, for all that I don’t want to look one up or think on it more.↩
I think that this might be generally how one is taught to read for bias, but I can’t remember that, and that’s a claim that’s easier to disprove. Since no single person taught me to read musical pieces, no one can disprove that these were the lessons I took, even if they’re not the best.↩
Wow that’s a deep philosophical question↩
e.g. my goal for Jeb is primarily to have written it, rather than telling any particular story. I’m sure that there is a pro somewhere to doing things this way, but there is clearly also a con↩
gosh that’s a strong ending. Shame that it’s not going to survive into future drafts, and wow I could phrase it better to make the irony clearer. Maybe it will survive after all↩

Musings

I'm just copying my father

Home

On Ratings

Draft 2

Draft 1

Flash Fiction Friday

Draft 1

Book Review of Fundamentals of the Faith

Draft 1

On Teaching Crochet

Draft 1

On Blogging

Draft 1

Open Mic

Draft 2

Draft 1

Reflections on Today’s Gospel

Draft 1

On Editing

Draft 3

Draft 2.1 Started a sentence that went too long

Draft 2

Draft 1

Flash Fiction Friday

Draft 1

On Conclusions

Draft 2

Draft 1