"The Story of English in 100 Words" (By: David Crystal)

Cover image copied from Amazon.com

I noticed that some of my brilliant friends from college were reading this book, and it sounded interesting, so I decided to take the plunge.

The author has selected 100 words from the English language, and for each word, he takes two to three pages to describe the history of the word and how it has been used, and how its usage has changed over time. It's a very easy book to pick up and read a couple chapters and then put down again. There are many interesting quirks and footnotes in the history of English that Crystal points out. Overall, I'd say this is a book I would highly recommend to any person who finds the English language and its history fascinating (if you aren't one of those people, you might want to try the book anyway...you might discover that its more interesting than you thought!).

Next week: comments about Thomas Jefferson (in light of my recent visit to Monticello) and more thoughts from Francis Bacon and "The Advancement of Learning"

Cheers!

Francis Bacon: "The Advancement of Learning"

I delved into this text a while ago, and recently picked it back up. A little history about Bacon for those who are unfamiliar would be in order. Sir Francis Bacon lived in the late 16th and early 17th centuries in England where he held many important political positions. He helped develop the scientific method and examined and experimented on many natural phenomena. He was one of the major intellectual figures of his time, and much of what he discovered has served as the foundation for modern science. Last night I ran across this passage:

"The corrupter sort of mere politiques, that have not their thoughts established by learning in the love and apprehension of duty, nor never look abroad into universality, do refer all things to themselves, and thrust themselves into the centre of the world, as if all lines should met in them and their fortunes, never caring in all tempests what becomes of the ship of state, so they may save themselves in the cockboat of their own fortune; whereas men that feel the weight of duty and know the limits of self-love use to make good their places and duties, though with peril..."

I was struck by this description of the un-learned person as bringing everything back to him or herself, and how "in all tempests" this person cars only for his or her own fortune and not for the "ship of state" or the common good, trusting in his or how own fortune to save him or herself. How well this describes so many of our modern life-arrangers and persons of power today!! I was struck by the manifold examples of this attitude in recent news:

1) Joe Paterno and other PSU authorities: they were so concerned with the reputation of their football program and how much money it was making for them (i.e. their "fortune") that they were willing to let a serial child molester go unpunished and free to repeat his crimes to "save themselves in the cockboat of their own fortune".

2) Politicians who are so beholden to the gun-lobby that they won't even consider a bill that would limit gun users to ammunition clips of 10 bullets or less. Given the national tragedies involving guns in the United States of America, one would think that we could all agree that there's no legal need to have an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 bullets... And yet, these politicians are more interested in "saving themselves in the cockboat of their own fortune" (i.e. the campaign donations they receive from the gun lobby), than in caring for the "ship of state", because they "thrust themselves into the centre of the world".

3) Those involved in the LIBOR scandal: need I point out the degree to which these individuals tried to "save themselves in the cockboat of their own fortune" and to which they "thrust themselves into the centre of the world"?

4) Fourthly (I say, fourthly and not finally, because there is no "finally" to this list, it could go on and on...), there are those individual citizens of the United States and corporations who continually "save themselves in the cockboat of their own fortune": those who use off-shore bank accounts to shield themselves from paying the full weight of their taxes (What could be more "un-American" than a bank account that is literally not in the US?); those who ship jobs overseas, shutting down whole factories in the United States, destroying communities and the lives of individual workers to "save themselves in the cockboat of their own fortune" rather than make the ethical choice to make a narrower profit margin as a company, but continue to employ hard-working citizens; those who engage in dangerous financial practices that create these "bubbles" which we are suffering through (housing, banking, etc.), and those who lie, cheat, and steal from those who trusted them, like Bernie Madoff. Surely these men and women cared only for themselves and their fortunes, and never considered either the good of the country (in some cases the world) or their fellow citizens.

It is striking to imagine how things could be different if powerful decision makers in our country "felt the weight of duty" and knew "the limits of self-love". How much heart-ache could have been avoided if Joe Paterno had gone to the police instead of the president of his university? Or if politicians could pass sensible gun control laws that limit an individuals ability to commit acts of terrorism against his or her fellow citizens? Or if the financial masters of the world and the country considered what was best for the common good instead of what would line their own pockets?

It seems we have much to learn from Francis Bacon. As dismayed as I am by the rampant examples of this kind of behavior in the news (and it is striking how well Bacon's quote describes so much of what is in the news right now), I find some solace in the fact that apparently, this problem is a very old one, and that it has been plaguing humanity for some time. Virtue, it seems, has long been in short supply.

Perhaps it is time for a conversation about how authentic learning and education support the growth of virtue, and can help safeguard us as a country from this pernicious problem.

New Words...

I love learning! I recently finished re-reading "Foucault's Pendulum" by Umberto Eco. While I thought the book lacked the brilliant plot and dialogue of "In the Name of the Rose" (another brilliant Eco book), I was delighted by all the words I had to look-up while reading this book. Here is a list of fun words I read and their definitions from Google.

• isochronal - equal in duration or interval
• ogive - a Gothic arch
• chthonian - dwelling beneath the surface of the earth
• macumba - Brazilian religious cult using socery, ritual dance, and fetish
• catoptric - relating to a mirror, reflector, or reflection
• alembic - distilling apparatus; rounded necked flask
• eolopile - a device that, when heated, spins, spewing steam
• athanor - a furnace that feeds itself to maintain a consistent temperature
• homunculus - a very small humanoid creature
• notarikon - method for deriving a word using each of its initial or final letters to stand for another word, forming a sentence or idea from the words
• plerome - central core of primary meristem of a plant
• ogdoad - eight
• apothegm - a concise saying or aphorism
• hypallage - a transposition of the natural relations of two elements in a proposition
• zeugma - figure of speech in which one word applies to two other words in two different senses
• labile - easily changed ; having emotions that are easily aroused or freely expressed
• catafalque - decorated wooden framework supporting the coffin of a distinguished person during a funeral
• simoom - a desert wind that often carries dust/sand
• oriflamme - banner or standard ; a principle around which people rally
• syncretism - the practice of combining different beliefs while melding practices of various schools of thought
• austral - having to do with the south
• askesis - severe self-discipline
• couchette - railroad car with seats that turn into sleeping berths
• conventicle - secret or unlawful religious meeting
• telluric - of the earth or the soil
• philosopheme - a philosophical statement, theorem, or axiom
• rocaille - 18th century artistic style of decoration defined by elaborate ornamentation with pebbles, shells, or little beads
• cicatrix - scar of a healed wound, or on the bank of a tree
• menhir - tall upright stone erected in prehistoric times in Europe
• anamnesis - remembering things from a supposed previous existence
• grimoire - a book of spells
• hieratic - concerning priests
• sclerotic - being rigid or unresponsive, not able to adapt
• ithyphallic - having an erect penis
• auscultation - listening to sounds from the heart or lungs
• terraqueous - having both land and water
• tenebrous - dark, shadowy, or obscure

A Case for Back Roads...

I enjoy driving...a lot. I have a history of taking long solo road-trips (22 consecutive hours of solo driving from Miami, FL to Dayton, OH is my record). I must admit that much of my long trip driving experience has been on the interstate system, which, like all systems, has its pro and cons. Allow me to take a moment to examine them:

Pros of driving on an interstate:

• They tend to go between major cities in a relatively straight line (i.e. the shortest path)
• They tend to have the highest available speed limits (thus cutting down total travel time)
• They have standardized marking features such as milage markers, exit markers, and milage signs for distances to cities
• They advertise the services (i.e. gas, lodging, attractions, and food) available at each exit
• You are never that far from the next gas station
• They are kept in relatively good repair (i.e. no potholes that will swallow your car whole)

Cons of driving on an interstate:

• They tend to be boring
• The scenery is often not that attractive (although there are some exceptions to this rule)
• They often have many 18-wheel trucks driving on them, which can be troublesome for a regular car traveler (no offense intended to big-rig truck drivers! Keep on truckin'!)
• They are prone to have long-lasting construction projects that often bring them down to one lane, and dramatically reduce the speed limit (which is important for construction worker safety)
• When they aren't traveling through a major city they often travel through farm fields, and while farms are important, farms provide limited visual excitement on a lengthy trip.
• They sometimes have tolls

On my most recent road-trip to Charlottesville, VA from Cincinnati, OH (8 hours, 450 miles), Google maps service recommended that I begin my 8 hour journey with a three hour stint on non-interstate roads (Ohio state route 32, and US route 35). After examining the options, this seemed logical, and I gave it a go.

I was pleasantly surprised by my extended "back road" section of the trip, and was reminded of how delightful back roads can be, and thought for a moment, I would ramble on about the advantages of back roads from my own experience.

First of all, traveling on back roads was more convenient in that you often find yourself passing through little towns with gas stations and food places (some are even local instead of chains!) where one can pull off the drive and eat or get gas without having to get off at an interstate exit and then get back on (which sometimes seems to take a while depending on traffic).

The scenery is far more entertaining and enjoyable on those back roads. I spent some of my time driving through US 35 in West Virginia, and was just blown away by the beauty and grandeur of their mountains and forests.

You also sometimes find radio stations on back roads that you might not otherwise find on an interstate. For example, while on US 35 in West Virginia, I stumbled across a state sponsored classical radio station (89.9 I think), which happened to be playing my favorite Bach violin concerto (the one for two violins in D minor)! What a find! And who would have ever expected to find that, in those remote hills of all places!

There is WAY less traffic on these back roads. As I was driving along these back roads, I was struck by how few other cars I saw. I could go miles without seeing anyone.

As I reflect back on it, some of my other favorite drives have been "back road" drives. Followers of this blog will know that my wife and I recently took a vacation in the Pacific Northwest, and spent a lot of time driving the coasts of both Oregon and Washington: both of which were beautiful back roads.

I've also driving Route 1 in California which follows the coast there as well, and that is a beautiful stretch of road.

So, the next time you're planning a road-trip, consider routing in some back roads, just to give yourself a treat, and a taste of what goes on in those vast spaces between the interstates. I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised with what you find!

Until next time...keep reading!

BD

Galileo and thoughts on education...

I'm back from vacation! Here's a picture just to give you a taste of what I saw in Oregon and Washington...

"You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself." (Galileo)

As a teacher, I often think about learning: the things which aid it and which hinder it. Motivation is always a key ingredient in the recipe of learning. If you've read any of my other posts, you'll know I think Alfie Kohn had some great insight into motivation in his book "Punished by Rewards", in which he discusses the "Three Cs": Collaboration, Content, and Choice. He believes that when these three things are maximized and made relevant to people's lives, that they are more motivated.

I liked this quote above from Galileo because it summarizes so much of what I try to teach students and parents. I can explain something, I can demonstrate something, I can develop projects based around a concept, I can suggest readings about it, I can practice a skill with students in class, but if a student isn't actively engaged in the work, then it just washes over him or her without making any lasting impression. Each person must decide what's important for himself or herself, and pursue that with vigor and passion. Unfortunately, our education system isn't setup that way right now. So this is all a difficult sell to students who have had 8-10 years of what I call "sit, get, and spit" education. It's hard to break those habits. At school, we call this "shifting from a teaching centered culture to a learning centered culture". I think that sums it up pretty well.

This isn't a philosophy blog, and I don't want to get too deep into the realm of epistemology, but the second part of Galileo's quote reveals an interesting assumption: that the knowledge and skills we seek are already within us, waiting to be discovered or "found". This is a very "eastern" philosophy of knowledge. In the post-industrial west, we tend to think of knowledge as something that is outside of us that we somehow ingest and make part of us, like food. Even our colloquial verbiage around learning and thinking reflects this: "I need to sit back and digest that thought for a moment." or "I need to let that percolate in my mind." (percolation is a method for brewing coffee) "I need to let that soak in." Rarely if ever do you hear someone say, "Ah! Yes, you've helped me discover that idea in my mind!" Consider for a moment, the vastly different implications these perceptions of where knowledge comes from can have on how we approach the process of "learning."

The astute reader will have noticed that I haven't said whether I agree or disagree with Galileo's perspective on the origin of knowledge. Perhaps I'll save that for another day...

Happy reading!

Update

I'm at an educational technology conference this week, and then on vacation after that, which is why I haven't posted much and won't be posting actively again until after July 8th. I'm also reading the "Game of Thrones" series, and am short on reflections at the moment, although I might make some comments later. Keep reading!

Self-Reliance (Pt. 2)

More Emerson quotes with my analysis/ramblings:

"What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think. This rule, equally arduous in actual and in intellectual life, may serve for the whole distinction between greatness and meanness. It is the harder, because you will always find those who think they know what is your duty better than you know it. It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in the solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude."

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

This quote summed up well a passage in which Emerson encouraged his reader to have a flexible mind, and to always look at reality, truth, what actually is, and to evaluate things in that light. That even if one has made up one's mind about something, to be prepared to accept new evidence and change one's mind, if reality and truth demand it. It's great advice, "Make the best decision based on the information you have. Know what you think and believe. And be willing to listen to new truths as you encounter them and incorporate them into your understanding." This is the essence of intellectual growth.

"To be great is to be misunderstood."

"The centuries are conspirators against the sanity and authority of the soul. Time and space are but physiological colors which the eye makes, but the soul is light; where it is, is day; where it was, is night; and history is an impertinence and an injury, if it be any thing more than a cheerful apologue or parable of my being and becoming."

"These roses under my window make no reference to former roses or to better ones; they are for what they are; they exist with God today. There is no time to them. There is simply the rose; it is perfect in every moment of its existence."

"I must be myself. I cannot break myself any loner for you, or you. If you can love me for what I am, we shall be the happier."

"Insist on yourself; never imitate.... Your own gift you can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life's cultivation; but of the adopted talent of another, you have only an extemporaneous, half possession."

This brings to mind a quote from Pythagoras: "No one is free who is not master of himself." I love what Emerson has to say here at the end about how much we can do with our own gifts and how little we can do with the gifts of others. How often have we see people who seek to imitate a gift that they do not truly possess to meet someone else's expectations or please someone? The outcome is always the same: their efforts are mediocre at best, because their hearts aren't in it, because it's not true to themselves. They are betraying their own gifts, talents, uniquenesses to meet some external expectation.

But contrast that with seeing someone who presents his own unique gift at every moment "with the cumulative force" of his whole life's cultivation. We have all seen these people: the musician who comes alive on stage interacting with his or her instrument, making beautiful music; the teacher who loves learning and can share it with his or her students in creative ways; the writer who creates text that engages people, and moves them beyond themselves, etc. There are few things more inspiring than watching someone embrace his or her true gift and share it with the world. When one embraces one's own uniqueness, that is the beginning of greatness.

Self-Reliance (Pt. 1)

I recently re-read Emerson's short essay, "Self-Reliance", and thought I'd share some my favorite quotes with some commentary (as usual).

"To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, that is genius."

"Society is a joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs."

Self-reliance is averse to conformity. Conformity, by definition is the moulding of oneself to the shape or expectations of others (often a collective). I particularly like the last sentence of this quote. Societies love names and customs. Society loves to name things, because there is a sense of ownership and control in the act of naming. It can also give the false impression of having created the thing. How often have I heard students say something like, "Who created the circle?" As if any single person could claim to have created that majestic, infinite concept. Perhaps we can speak of the person who "discovered" it, and certainly someone gave it the name "circle" (and before him someone else called it something else, etc.). And in the naming it is easy to forget that we are mere puffs of smoke, who happen to grasp the ideal of a circle momentarily before being blown away, dispersed into oblivion, by the winds of time.

On the other hand, Emerson says that self-reliance loves reality and creators. The difference between the creator and the namer is vast. It's the distance between God and man. And while we Christians believe that God became man for our salvation, we must also hold simultaneously the awe-someness, the magnificence, the grandeur of God, never forgetting how far beyond our understanding God truly is.

"No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature."

"Truth is handsomer than the affectation of love. Your goodness must have some edge to it, else it is none."

"I cannot consent to pay for a privilege where I have intrinsic right. Few and mean as my gifts may be, I actually am, and do not need for my own assurance or the assurance of my fellows any secondary testimony."

Brilliant. Modern society is rife with this idea that I should evaluate myself in the light of the opinions of others. Emerson says, "I am. And that is enough. I care not what others think or say about me. For they are not me." See the next quote as well for more supporting text.

Final Thoughts on Hamlet

A few more wise words from Shakespeare's "Hamlet":

"Conceit in weakest bodies strongest works."

"When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions."

"Thou find'st to be too busy is some danger."

This is worth contemplation in our modern society. One of the situations we often see in school is the high-achieving student who is over-scheduled and over-involved. We see students who have every moment of their lives scheduled: as soon as the school day ends they have sports practice for three hours, then they have twenty minutes to get across town to their dance/piano/underwater basket weaving lessons, before going to play practice from 7-10. Somewhere in there they grab some fast food, and then they get home at 10 and start their homework and don't get to bed before midnight or 1 AM. Then we wonder why they're exhausted in school and why they don't start projects and papers until the night before.

Under their living conditions they don't have time to slow down and consider things or plan for the future. They just triage, and go from one event to the next, never stopping to think, wonder, consider, explore, daydream, etc. One of the very unfortunate consequences of the rapidly accelerating pace of life in 21st century US is what some of my colleagues and I call "The Over-Scheduled Student": students who are involved in so many activities that they have no down time, no free time, no opportunities for surprise. Einstein once said, "Creativity is the residue of time wasted." Many young people need more "wasted time" in their lives.

11/22/63 (Stephen King)

I recently finished Stephen King's new novel "11/22/63". While it probably doesn't qualify as one of the "great books" of Western literature, it was a very enjoyable and well written novel. The first few chapters setup the gist of the story pretty well. I actually skipped to the end and read the last few chapters to see how it turned out. The ending wasn't very surprising, but it did spark my curiosity as to how King got from beginning to end. It was compelling enough to get me to go back and read the middle. While there were a few points at which I felt as if the plot dragged, it seemed somehow appropriate to the situation of a man caught in a waiting game with the past.

Ultimately, this novel is about human relationships (friendship, family, marriage, love, hate, abuse, the human capacity for caring and kindness) and sacrifice. The characters are very deep and well written; the dialogue is great. Many of the situations the characters found themselves in were well constructed, believable, and hit home for me as a reader. Ultimately, I think it's worth the read. In the rest of this post, I'm going to write about specifics of the book. If you don't want to know what happens in the book, stop reading now.

One piece of the novel that felt contrived (and unnecessary) to me was toward the end when Jake/George gets attacked by the bookie and is laid up in the hospital for the months leading up to the assassination of Kennedy with amnesia, causing him to have difficulty remembering the specifics of his mission, forcing him to enlist Sadie and Deke into his mission to help him, and dragging the story out. I understand that this is meant to be further evidence of the "obdurate past" trying to prevent history from being changed, and as mentioned above, this provides some extra urgency and suspense leading up to the final moments of the assassination attempt. It also sets up the death of Sadie, which gives Jake/George further motive to reset the past (although his brief glimpse of the future he created should have been enough to do that, Sadie dead or alive).

But imagine for a moment that whole section of the book had been done away with. Imagine instead that Clayton's attack of Sadie happened in the summer of '63, and Jake spent the months leading up to the assassination attempt caring for Sadie instead of having amnesia. Then on the day of the assassination, he leaves Sadie behind and goes through all the same trials and tribulations with the same outcome on the 6th floor of the book depository, except that Sadie isn't killed. Then, after the FBI releases him, he picks up Sadie and takes her back to the future with him. They see how bad things are, and then go back to 1958 together to reset things, and then go back again into the future together to live out their lives. Tied up a little too neatly? What if Sadie, for some reason that could be invented by the Green Card Man, couldn't go through the time portal, and Jake/George had to leave her behind, and then the ending stays in tact as well... All of this is merely a long-winded way of saying that I don't think all the stuff with Jake/George getting beat up by the bookie and everything that follows that sub-plot was really necessary. I think the book would be just as good (maybe better) without it. And it would certainly be a good 75ish pages lighter.

On the whole however, I did enjoy the book, and while this wasn't really a sci-fi novel (I think it was a book about human relationships that happened to involve time travel), I did enjoy watching King try to set and adjust the boundaries of his fictional world in which time travel was possible. I also appreciate that he didn't go to great lengths to try to explain every detail of how or why it worked. A little mystery is a good thing. The idea of the "harmonies" of the past was a clever foil, and he avoided over-use of that little tool, which had the potential to become annoying. Setting up the idea of the "obdurate past" was clever as well, because it really shifts the story from George vs. Oswald to George vs. History. And we get a sense of how formidable an opponent history can be.