W R Carlson: Personal Stuff

Playlist - not enough details with one Genre field - Thanks Apophenia

Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:09:50 GMT

In this post by Apophenia - there is the sense that Genrefication is the solution - but I think the "would you make me a dub-mix" line is the key - it is the play list you want to listen too - not just the Genre's - genre's cannot be specific enough if there's only one field of information - even within one artist - there's too much variety to pack into a single genre, let alone mood, and setting.

Someone in a position of authority (read Steve Jobs? or an appropriate iPod minion) needs to think about this for a while and come up with a list of fields - 2.0. I know there are a few solutions out there, but none seem to do it quite right. So maybe there's an opportunity for Apple or Creative, or Red Chair, to come up with the solution that will take this whole thang to a new level.

====================================

music genres and moods.

One of the reasons that i loved Napster was that you could see how people labeled their music, particularly the genre. In music, i use genre like i use tagging in Gmail, del.icio.us and Flickr, only i'm a bit more obsessive about keeping them organized. My playlists are all automatically created based on my idiosyncratic genre labels. The labels are not for you, but for me and i don't care if PsyChill doesn't really exist - it's the label that ties together things like bluetech and Shpongle.

Due to 1) my new iPod, 2) the barfing of my Mac, 3) the scanning of CDs and 4) my obsession with last.FM, i am diving deeply into my music collection to re-genrify things. It is this attribute of last.FM that is given me the greatest curiosity. Last.FM is full of people with - shall we say - "interesting" tastes. I'm sorry but there is no playlist in the world that should have Gwar and Nina Simone together. Wrong wrong wrong. And why is Elliott Smith on the top artists page of the genre Breaks? No no no.

Of course, i'm part of fucking this up. I love Elliott Smith and i love breaks. Since i am in the breaks group, my listening to Elliott Smith is affecting that genre page. This is a problem. I know better when i manually genrify my music. Elliott Smith is is the MaleNeuvoFolk genre (which is effectively equivalent to Sadcore except can also be listened to when not depressed). I would never recommend Elliott Smith to a breaks aficionado.

I'm worried that this diverse listening pattern is messing up all the data. After three days of listening to non-stop chillout, goa and breaks, i should not be getting recommendations for Rancid and Ludacris. The problem is that there's a big gap between Beth Orton and Son Kite and i fear that trying to resolve those two listening patterns will result in abysmal results. The system should know that i'm listening with two different faceted patterns - the chill danah and the dancey danah.

When i ask a friend for music advice, i don't simply say "give me anything you listen to." I know better. But i would ask "could you make me a dub mix?" or "what would complement Dr Toast?" Or think about the Back to Mine series (collections based on what musicians chill out to). I want my last.FM to understand that there are moods. All of my playlists get this. All of my genrification gets this. Now it's time for last.FM. I should be able to play everything that userx thinks makes for "coding music" or for "chill out" or for "getting ready to go out." I want to be able to cluster my music. I want to be able to inform Audioscrobbler to only tell the genre group "PsyTrance" about things that i've marked Full-On, Melodic, Scando or PsyChill. Or tell them about a playlist or two. Tag the genres so that i don't blush when i see my love of Johnny Cash appear as appropriate for other Trip-Hop fiends.

[apophenia]

Happy New Year

Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:46:31 GMT

Just a quick happy new years message.

I had the delightful and surreal experience this year of running into my high-school girlfriend and her family while on Chirstmas vacation with my wife and family. Everyone was on their best behavior and it was not too awkward - my guess is that once the ice was broken, and everyone hugged everyone else then the tension was released. But in fact it was a wonderful gift to see her again after all these years. She looked great, and her family (parents and daugters) looked great - it was like no time had passed at all.

Thanks again David Gurteen - for a series of interesting Social Network Links

Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:45:19 GMT

Unlocking Human Potential Through Social Networking. By David Gurteen

I was just looking to learn a little more on Social Networking for my upcoming Exploiting Social Networking in Organizations conference in September and stumbled across a post by Robin Good on his weblog where he raves about a paper from Lee Bryant on the topic. Now it just so happens I have seen Lee speak, the last time at the Social Tools Symposium conference in London last week and was so impressed with his deep understanding of the subject and the people issues that I 'signed him up' to speak at my conference.

In Robin Good's words: "the paper entitled Smarter, Simpler, Social - An introduction to online social software methodology is an absolutely brilliant and well referenced resource to understand and appreciate the forces at work in our communication efforts."

Robin is spot on. The paper is brilliant. [Gurteen Knowledge Log]

The Zuboff Clamshell - reigns again. Shoshana was one of my Profs at HBS - Let me plug her book sight unseen til now.

Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:43:18 GMT

The Support Economy. By David Gurteen

A week or so ago John Maloney e-mailed me a weblog entry of Bill Ives on the book The Support Economy by Shoshana Zuboff and James Maxmin. I loved the opening premise:

"The Support Economy starts with a compelling premise: People have changed more than the corporations upon which their well-being depends. In the chasm that now separates the new individuals from the old organizations is the opportunity to forge a capitalism suited to our times and so unleash a vast new potential for wealth creation."

And then at the week-end, although the book was published in 2002, it was the fist book I come across in my local bookshop. So of course I just had to buy it. Its not light reading and I have only got through the first 30 pages or so but the concepts are awesome. Here is another quote:

"The last fifty years have seen the rise of a new society of individuals, but corporations continue to operate according to the logic of managerial capitalism, invented a century ago for different people, different markets, and different needs. Today's individuals seek psychological self-determination. They are the origins of their own meanings, not a passive mass audience."

I like that phrase "psychological self-determination". To me its another way of saying that people are becoming more responsible for their own lives and learning to be themselves. [Gurteen Knowledge Log]

Corporate Social Networking is Datamining in disclosed, High-Trust Networks - It is not moving beyond the Horizon.

Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:27:45 GMT

Good example of business networking through social knowledge management. This is a case from Interface Software's files from a Boston-based accounting firm.

Concept: Query Partners for personal relationships with CEOs -> Prepare direct mail piece -> Insert personal note from Partner with the relationship.

"The marketing team queried the system and determined that partners had existing relationships with fifty percent of the 200 CEOs on the new prospect list. A high-end mailing piece was sent to each of those 200 CEOs, along with a personal note by the internal relationship holder. “The results were phenomenal,“ said Jill Hulsen, Vitale Caturano’s director of marketing. “Twenty-three of those two hundred companies we mailed to have since become clients, with resulting revenues in excess of 5 million,“ she added. “We could never have expected results like this from a mailer without the advantage of knowing about those personal relationships in advance.” [thanks to Scotsman.com]"

Now, is it necessary to have internal corporate social networking software to do this? I suppose the abilty to do the query is greatly enhanced by scanning the social networks (rolodexes) of the Partners without the effort of having to ask each of them to do it... In fact this is probably the key advantage of the system.

So why not ryze or LinkedIn? I suppose it comes down the the issue of people not putting their whole rolodex into the system - or, maybe more accurately their TRUSTED social network. I'm guessing that this example worked because the 200 or so CEO's known the the partners of the accounting firm were truly known, not just acquantances (at least a good portion of them). And as a result, you could offer a reasonable, quality service from people who were known quantities.

So, where am I going with this... There are at least two types of searches in social networks - the first is a specific search for specific information where there is usually a small number or even a single target that is unknown to the search initiator. The first type of search usually follows a path longer than 2 links - that is beyond the network horizon. The second type of search is to "mine" the data within the network horizon for contacts that have some need, want, desire or capabilty in common. Then you use the resulting subset of contacts for a targeted communications campaign.

Bottom Line - Mining Data within the Horizon, or Searching Beyond the Horizon. I suspect both are facilitated by an environment (corporate or otherwise) in which trust is high enough that people will disclose their high-trust social network information.

Halley-Brilliants - 9 AM Monday Dance Break!

Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:38:07 GMT

Must Do in Schedule, Pattern interrupt! You are a font of Museful Ideas!

Monday Thing.

Monday Thing

I have this theory that people try to get 85% of what they need to do for the entire week done on Monday. This makes them half nuts and very unpleasant to be around. (Once I started working on my own, I realized this was a good reason to crank up rock and roll very loud around about 9:00am on Monday and spend the first hour of the week dancing. This, correlated with the fact that the highest rate of heart attacks take place allegedly at 9:00am on Monday, seemed a much more healthy response.)

When I worked in real offices, Monday mornings were often spent in sales or marketing meetings where the boss was yelling at the staff like an angry dad and the staff was stuffing themselves with pastry and coffee to feel better like unhappy children eating sticky treats.

Then on Tuesday, people do the last 15% of their week's work and fix mistakes they made from rushing around like crazy people on Monday. Then Wednesday, they see what really matters that week and what they would have been better off focusing on right from the beginning to be really effective. Thursday they rest because they start thinking about the weekend. Friday they don't do anything because it is Friday after all, Thank God! [Halley's Comment]

Wrote, Don't think! Let tem know they matter. thanks again Halley!

Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:22:10 GMT

Halley, you are always expressing thoughts that so many of as have-but fail to Say!

i woke up in a hotel room this morning, and flipped on the TV after getting out of the shower. there was this movie w/Sean Connery, where he plays an author. He is helping maybe Denzil Washington to learn to write, and spends the whole fame saying: Write Don't think! Something I need to do! In this way You Capture raw ideas and at least say staff that ends up being meaningful to your self, your family and as you do anther post-tell people they mean something to you. Even of you don't do what you say yon should or ought to do.

Wouldn't It Be Nice?.

Wouldn't It Be Nice?

My Monday mornings, as much as they get jam-packed full of things to do and places to go and people to see and ALL THAT, are still emotional and lush and human.

But even on those hustle bustle Monday mornings, I would like to remember to let the people I love know one thing -- that I love them and appreciate all the nice things they do for me. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all take time to do that? [Halley's Comment]

I am a books and language snob...;-)

Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:31:27 GMT

Took the quiz - got the same result...

I too am a books and language snob - although drinking, music, art and travel are up there too...

L33tspeak.

Saw this quiz on somebody else's LJ and thought it looked cute.

You speak eloquently and have seemingly read every book ever published. You
are a fountain of endless (sometimes useless) knowledge, and never fail to
impress at a party. What people love: You can answer almost any question
people ask, and have thus been nicknamed Jeeves. What people hate: You
constantly correct their grammar and insult their paperbacks.

What Kind of Elitist Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Not entirely true, but close enough. [By the way, do people like these quizzes? I've seen several others I've been taking, but I'm not sure whether to post the results, or if it will just bore the heck out of you all.]

My writing plan for this morning didn't work. I polished up the conclusion, but that one scene still escapes me. I can visualize it, but I just can't seem to write it. I wish I could do like Terry Moore and just have the story switch from prose to comic-style illustration for a scene and then back again. Meanwhile, the rest of the story has reached the point where it's starting to feel like overworked bread dough. I shouldn't tinker with it any more. But nyarrgh! <gnashes teeth? And I can't focus on that any more for the day, since I need to continue jobhunting.

Finally, through that Jay Leno quote I posted yesterday, I discovered that Associated Press runs a daily column, Comedians on the political campaign with excerpts from Leno, Letterman and Craig Kilborn (no Jon Stewart, alas, but he usually puts at least one video segment from the Daily Show on the website). At any rate, this link will take you to Google News where you can conistently get the latest day's column. Enjoy!

[Riba Rambles:]

Praying's a lot like sex...

Sun, 18 Jul 2004 02:24:22 GMT

Halley.you've done it again! Praying is alot thee sex. As You Said , it was meant to do everywhere and always improves the day!

places I've done it :

Piano-on top/underneath

Camero

Cadillac-Lots of Cars

Kitchen -Bent over an oven

Ina bathroom -Shower/toilet/Floor...

Couches Chairs File Cabinets Desks

Boats -Sail/Power /Paddle

And the list goes on and on...

My Friend Rob.

My Friend Rob

I have a friend who reads my stuff and sends me thoughtful email and I got a great note from him this morning about my son being ill and how sometimes praying can take the edge off -- I totally agree.

I completely misread something he wrote, however.

He wrote this -- about how his kid's illnesses could "send me into the closest church to pray."

And I read it quickly as, "send me into the closet church to pray."

And I thought, wow -- THE CLOSET CHURCH -- he prays in the closet sometimes too? Okay, so now I have to explain that I pray EVERYWHERE any old time and I have a big closet and sometimes, it's a great place to pray. Praying's a lot like sex that way for me -- I figure it was meant to do everywhere and anywhere and always improves the day.

And I wanted to answer that other question Rob asked -- why do I always wear black in all my pictures -- and the answer is -- I don't know, just because that's what I always wear when I get dressed up I guess.
[Halley's Comment]

Toshiba m200 Tablet PC

Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:32:06 GMT

This is my first post since getting my Toshiba M200 tablet PC. Will see if it actually works after moving everything using PC Relocator. In fact I've been pretty impressed with everything about this whole relocation process.

BTW this whole post is being translated on the fly by the Tablet PC input panel of the Toshiba! Great handwriting recognition, or is it great handwriting? Also -Great Wireless WIFI!

Well Got to Run

Rollerblades and the Big Honking Pink Cast!

Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:12:13 GMT

Monday (Patriot's day for those of you who are from MA), my daughters were home and decided to go outside and rollerblade. I suggested they dig out their wrist guards, etc... No of course not, they are tough, they don't need no stinkin' wrist guards! While guess what!!?

I got to spend a big hunk of yesterday hustling one of em around from Pediatrician to Hospital to Orthopedic guy, and now we have a broken radius, ulna and and big honking pink cast. No not the lovely delicate waterproof gore-tex cast, but the huge, above-the-elbow fiberglass (looks like the old plaster type I had when I broke my arm) type. And Pink - Oh my God! It's practically neon. How do you sign a cast like that... Oh well. Live and Learn. Sometime's Dad knows what he's talking about.

At least the general level of embarrassment over actually having fallen and hurt herself kept her from wimpering too loudly or complaining about the consequences. It was her own damn fault. And in fact she was tough and did show great courage. Coming in the house, getting an ice pack and taking tylenol - all before informing me of the injury at all. Quite stoic! She is a cool kid.

Now the gym teachers who were having her do LONG-JUMPING before I picked her up for the trip to the pediatrician will think twice when a kid says they can't participate because they hurt themselves - jees, can you imagine if she had landed on her broken arm during gym! Wow!

Yet Another Social Networking Software YASNS - site list

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:11:51 GMT

The list has been moved to here: Social Networking Sites and Software sorted by name
Please note that YOU can edit this list yourself to make it more accurate and up-to-date! I am not personally maintaining this list anymore, I am counting on all of you to continually keep it updated. Thanks very much.

Websites
Ryze: business
ecademy: business
LinkedIn: business
itsnotwhatyouknow: business
Friendly Favors: business
ZeroDegrees: business (corporate)
Accolo: jobs
RealContacts: jobs
Eliyon: business, jobs
Friendster: friendship, dating
Sona Matchmaker: friendship, dating (India)
Huminity: friendship
everyonesconnected.com: friendship
Ringo: friendship
PalJunction: friendship, business, dating, roommates
Tribe: friendship, business, dating, roommates, classifieds
Club Nexus at Stanford - need URL: alumni, article
MeetUp: in-person
Buddy Zoo: IM social networking analysis
*PayDemocracy: political groups
*classmates.com: alumni
*.reunion.com: alumni
*InfoSpace: yellow pages (references)
*SwitchBoard: yellow pages (references)
*Match.com: dating
*People on Page: friendship, dating
*all of the other dating sites
People Aggregator: ???

*= could easily cross over into social networking

Software:
Spoke SW: business (corporate)
Visible Path, business (corporate)
**wwPlaxo.: contacts
**GoodContacts: contacts
**Accucard: contacts

** contact software could easily add social networking features as they have all of the necessary data

Blogs with some features of Social Networking
livejournal: blog
Expressions: visual blogging
Fotolog: visual blogging

Question Marks
WisomeBuilder
NetDiva

Preliminary Analysis
It seems pretty clear that not all of these social networking sites or software will survive. Clay Shirky states "The *only* thing these services have to base a business on is lack of interoperability". I believe there is another part to the value proposition that they offer users -- the ability to go beyond 1 degree of separation. However, it's really difficult to think of situations where going more than 2 degrees of separation is worthwhile, unless you are a contagious disease - see my whitepaper Links and Nodes in Social Networks. Unless >2 degrees of separation and node secrecy are valued by users (maybe not everyone but an interestingly large set of users), an "open" networking service will make these proprietary services and software obsolete. before they've made a penny.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to the many people who helped me compile this list including:

Clay Shirky
Danah Boyd
Doug Rush
Sean Murphy
Debi Jones
Patti Anklam

If I left your name off let me know and I will add it.

- posted by Cynthia @ 9/14/2003 09:49:58 AM

Mary Sue - sounds like an interesting literary concept - too many ideas, not enough time...

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:04:26 GMT

Stranger in a Strange Mary Sue. I just found a great old post by Teresa Nielsen Hayden on "Mary Sue".

MARY SUE (n.): 1. A variety of story, first identified in the fan fiction community, but quickly recognized as occurring elsewhere, in which normal story values are grossly subordinated to inadequately transformed personal wish-fulfillment ...
[for example] Galadriel's secret love-child (Aragornï¿½s unacknowledged daughter) who runs off to join the Company of the Ring, sorts out Boromir's problems, out-magics Gandalf, out-fights Aragorn during the melodramatic scene in which she reveals her true identity, demonstrates herself to be so spiritually elevated that the Ring has no effect on her, and wins Legolas' heart forever.

I loved this, and was all set to blog that Robert Heinlein falls deep into this trap in some later novels--until I discoved Teresa's commenters had already said exactly this.

What would Mary Sue do in my situation? Drink exotic poison and die a lingering death in the arms of Johnny Depp, as mascara ran down his cheeks on a riptide of tears....

[Betsy Devine: Funny Ha-Ha or Funny Peculiar?]

Context driven SNS... Need to spend more time thinking about who likes which service and How services differ...

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:52:55 GMT

They are not better or best (although some might be), but rather different for different purposes - I find I use the services very differently - and sporadically. In the end, I think Ryze is still doing the best job. But I do like several features of some of the others - linkedIn Orkut, friendster, no so much flickr or the rest. No experience with Tribe which is apparently popular.

Let me point to my January post to the SNS thesis - the key is how these services and other software enable you to manage and extend your social network. Does it stay online? Does it translate into shared activities? Lot's of questions and some interesting early answers - but it still feels in flux.

=============================================================

Which YASNS is best?.

Over and over again, people tell me that one of the YASNS is *far* better than any of the other ones. Usually, they want me to agree with them. Sometimes, people just ask me which one i think is best.

Given that this is me, i have a problem with this question. My problem is not personal or political... it's contextual. In this case, "best" is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, i often ask people what *they* want in a YASNS. Almost always, there's one overwhelming factor that makes one YASNS better than another for the individual: "people like me."

In a post-finals hallucinatory state, i decided to attend a gathering with some of my peers last December. A group gathered into a "panel" to talk about social software. One very smart, very respected VC spoke about how she believed that LinkedIn was hands down the best YASNS. I found myself speaking... or more accurately exploding because of her conception. It's not that i don't believe that LinkedIn was the best for her - i truly do. It's that i don't believe that there is a universal best.

When i was interviewing early Friendster adopters about the site, over and over again, they told me that they loved it because it was a site fool of cool hipsters like them. They identified with the people on the site and they loved feeling like everywhere they turned, they saw other people that they thought were cool. They were not looking forward to it being mainstream because then there will be duds on the system. Each sub-hipster group was likely to run across more people like them depending on their linking structure. (Homophily again.) Because most people joined under one context, they never saw the other "non-hipsters" that they dealt with in everyday life. When that started happening, they were disappointed.

When Orkut exploded, all of the social software fiends jumped on the train like it was going to Disney World. It was the end-all be-all of the YASNS. Of course it was... to them... It was filled with people like them - their colleagues, those that they respect, etc. It felt like home.

Guess what? At Tribe.net, there are lots of people who feel at home and spend exorbitant hours on the service. Same with MySpace. Same with Everyone's Connected. Same with Live Journal.

The battle is not simply about the best tools. In fact, that's a truly secondary issue. It's about motivating a coherent group to join, participate and make it home. What makes the best pub? Is it really the beer or the price? Hell, the only reason that the music usually matters is because it draws people that you like to the pub. It's the combination of environment and people.. but the environment brings the people so the environment DOES matter.

There's an architectural lesson there... Environment matters because it draws the right people. This is why niche shit works. The biggest joke about the Internet is that the most profitable services are barely public. They address a niche market completely. One of the most unfortunate things about social software is that everyone is trying to court everyone to their service. Frankly, a far more appropriate response would be to try to figure out which users are most suited for your tool given its current state and then try to meet their needs completely. Figure out your audience. And don't simply focus on your desired audience because the tool you created may not have met their needs... be able to shift if you find that you've built something far more appropriate for another group. Cause frankly? If you have, the users know it and are using it more completely there.

[Note: Friendster's popularity in Asia isn't because it's a good tool; it's because the way the site was structured met that population's needs/desires without much translation. It was inadvertently and accidentally best for them, not well designed for them.]

[apophenia]

SNA 101 - Social Networks a valuable analytical tool...

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:37:38 GMT

Rob Cross: Introduction to Social Network Analysis.

Rob Cross: Introduction to Social Network Analysis

SNA 101

[elearningpost]

Clean your desk / Process the Inbox - NOW!!!!

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:29:36 GMT

I need some inspiration to clean my workspace - only 32% sounds low - not real data.

=================================================

CNET: Feeling blue? Maybe it's your cubicle.

CNET: Feeling blue? Maybe it's your cubicle

"Nearly half of women surveyed--46 percent--and 32 percent of men said their emotional state was closely tied to the condition of their workspace."
Workspace design is an important element in knowledge sharing too. Tom Davenport analyzed such causal relationships sometime back.

[elearningpost]

Halley - you are endlessly fascinating!

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 16:13:45 GMT

OK OK - you are endlessly fascinating - juxtaposing posts - On The Perceived Hermanetics of Didactic Fundamentalism and then this one...

I am hot just imagining you in your bikini - pink hat - darjeeling dream

And Great Link to Daniel Day Lewis as Cecil - talk about contrasts - Room with a View and then Last of the Mohicans - don't underestimate the flexibilty of us tweedy guys...

==============================================

Cock-A-Doodle Do.

Cock-A-Doodle Do

Rise and shine, guys. Let's go. It's getting late. 5:22 am here I suppose that rooster noise is what woke me, figuratively, metaphorically, not literally, as there is no strutting bird anywhere in sight, but in my mind's eye, which is to say a rather sexy dream woke me, what's a girl to do, but stagger out of bed, say ... "hmmm" about that, put a light on, shuffle into the kitchen, grab the counter for balance, flip the switch on the teapot, reach for the Darjeeling to bring her back to Earth, and with spring battling winter and my dreamy landscape a hot summer beach, I don a most inappropriate but perfect costume, last summer's black and white bikini, a black cashmere sweater, a pink faux fur hat. You can't take this life too seriously you see.

I think, "Who Was That Masked Man?"

Maybe ... him?
Maybe ... him?
Maybe ... him?
Maybe ... him?
Maybe ... him?
No, must have been ... oh yes, he's the one. [Halley's Comment]

If I've luck sir, She's my Uxor - thanks Halley for a romp through my maying years!

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:56:33 GMT

Thank you Halley - once again for keeping me on my literary toes. My introduction to Uxor comes from an a capella song I sang back in high-school. It is a very sophomoric tribute to latin lessons by John O'Keefe:

Amo, Amas

AMO, amas,; I love a lass
As a cedar tall and slender!: Sweet cowslips' grace; Is her Nominative Case,
And she's of the Feminine Gender.
Rorum, corum, sunt Divorum!
Harum, scarum Divo!
Tag rag, merry derry, periwig and hatband,
Hic hac, horum Genetivo!: Can I decline; A Nymph divine?
Her voice as a flute is dulcis!: Her oculi bright!; Her manus white!
And soft, when I tacto, her pulse is!
Rorum, corum, sunt Divorum!
Harum scarum Divo!
Tag rag , merry derry, periwig and hatband,
Hic hac, horum Genetivo!: O, how bella; Is my Puella!
I'll kiss sæculorum!: If I've luck, Sir!; She's my Uxor!
O, dies benedictorum!
Rorum, corum, sunt Divorum!
Harum scarum Divo!
Tag rag, merry derry, periwig and hatband,
Hic, hac, horum Genetivo!: John O'Keefe

Note the line above - "if I've luck sir, she's my Uxor." In other words the beautiful woman he is singing about will become his wife! Or, at least will perform some "wifely" activities...;-)

Thanks again=======================================================

Uxorial.

Uxorial

I used this word "uxorial" today on the phone with someone who knows a lot of words and he didn't know this one. It's a great word.

I have nothing but avuncular or perhaps, fraternal feelings for this guy, btw.

And he is not particularly uxorious either. He simply needed to ask her a question before we could plan an outing. [Halley's Comment]

Just set up the Crossbow Platinum

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:58:25 GMT

Yesterday, I received my Weider Crossbow Platinum!

Not quite a new year's resolution - maybe a lenten resolution (the Passion of the Christ review to follow in a couple weeks time to see it at least once and digest it). I've had a Lifecycle and have ridden it intermittently over the years. Good stress relief, good cardio aerobic workout - but I am withering in my upper body... Well, aeons ago, I was a swimmer - butterfly! and now... well it is not the physique that I think I have. Oh I'm not really fat (by American standards), but since I can never get to a gym, I needed to bring the gym to me.

By the way, after I ordered it, I learned that it is a late night advertising item - yech! But I did not see one ad. I was just looking for home gym equipment that was not crap. Nor was it $8,000 for a multi-station, multi-weight-stack system that I don't have room for (I am not a small hotel). So, after some research, it seemed that it came down to this unit, or the bowflex. All the actual user comparisons that I read suggested that the functionality was quite similar, and the price was much lower. Plus, while the electronic control was a bit gadgety, it allowed for 1 lbs increments in the weight adjustment.

For the purists - I do own a set of powerblocks (weight-selectable free-weights - for the uninitiated). And while they are great, they just don't allow me to work out the way I like - I like a lat bar to pull down on! And I wanted a rowing bench. Almost got a Concept rower (may get it yet), but with the lifecycle, I thought I've got the aerobic thing down - what I need is a comprehensive strength training system.

Soooo....

Set it up last night - tons of parts - but the procedures are clear. For those of you who might do this yourselves, just sort all the little parts next to the parts diagram. There are a few typos - 31 nylon lock nuts of one type vs 21 in reality. But essentially it went smoothly. Did it by myself (OK my older daughter helped align a screw or two). And, you might want to pre-start a couple screws just to deburr a couple tapped holes.

A metric ratchet set was very helpful. The most difficult part of assembly was getting the rubber handgrips onto the squat unit. Soapy water hardly helped. I ended up using a vice-grip to help me get a strong enough grip on the handgrips to twist them into position. One worked beautifully, the other suffered minor damage - oh well.

Today, I tried it out. Feels solid, and gave me a reasonable set of excercises for the upper body routine. Well I needed to adjust the weight, I found that it was pretty easy using the control panel. And I actually liked that it ran through multiple sets of reps and adjusted the weight automatically (even if not quite to an appropriate level). Give me some time, and I'll work my way up to it.

My daughter thought it was pretty cool, and she tried it out for an abs and back workout - hours later, she told me she could still feel it - and to be honest, so can I. Well, well see how long this lasts...

SpellBound - Spelling Bee documentary. I missed it, but I tried to watch

Thu, 29 Jan 2004 02:40:09 GMT

Only Rave Reviews

Keeping Social Networking Simpler - It is not shared interests - but Shared Activities - Get together and you've got reality.

Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:44:21 GMT

What You Smell Like, versus Your Features and Functionality.

"Ever watch dogs social-networking ?

They cut to the chase pretty quickly"

(A comment I left on Teledyn the blog)

"ROTFL !"

(the response by Gary Lawrence Murphy - mrG)

Gary has written an excellent analysis of why this first wave of what is called social-networking software is badly flawed.

I can't help thinking that a default mindset to the mental models of engineering, and the seeming male predilection for things, gizmos, linear thinking, whatever - is one of the key reasons why this first wave won't work.

This was recently brought home to me very clearly. I belong to a small group of seven guys roughly 40 to 50 years old. We formed this group ostensibly to help each other with business opportunities and such like, although to me it's clear that the main value of this group is in providing a place where these fledgling men can talk about things that matter to them. I don't think most of them see it that way - whenever the interaction gets rich and useful, they want to get back to business and money stuff.

However ... recently we have discussed (again) whether to use email, forums, a bulletin board, a blog, and so on to keep in touch - we've tried them all, and the group wants some clarity on this.

But ... what I found interesting about this back-and-forth conversation was the impatience that came through when talking about the *process* - contrasted by the fervour and enthusiasm when a question in one of the emails led to a flurry of emails about what was best - a smartphone, a Treo, a Sony Clie, etc. All of a sudden, several emails were full of the minute details of this feature or that functionality or the per-month price or what kinds of software were available.

Like young boys with new toy cars.

Have there been any women involved in designing social-networking software ? I think there should be.

Here's a tasty excerpt from mrG's musings on social-networking:

the failure of the social network sites

And yes, I do think they will fail, it's inevitable. Whether by intentional design or by blind emulations, these new black-book stop-shops all share several dubious characteristics:

they are not social networks, only flat-taxonomy directories of questionaire replies, and badly designed questionaires at that.
because they do not interoperate, because they cannot share data or interchange or allow identity migrations, they are essentially anti social, building protectionist walls around people (called 'clubs' or 'communities' but really meaning the opposite)
they don't work.

So why don't they work? Because they are not social networks.

A social network is a network with a social cause, a social reason for being. Social networks fill a niche need for interaction. Church clubs, business clubs, square-dance clubs, these form natural, anthropologically sound social networks with the intelligent self-organization moving from the local (chapter) out to the regional and then clustering still beyond. They are also self-governing, electing their executives from grassroots, organizing on the need to expand the social network.

[wirearchy News]

Alicia L. Cervini's Thesis on Social Networking Software - Excellent Overview and Elucidation of the Goal

Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:42:51 GMT

Alicia L. Cervini's Thesis on Social Networking Software Identifies a number of Useful themes:

First, Social Networking software is not just the recent flurry of online networking tools.

Instead, it is the whole sphere of software-based tools that allow people to manage (track contacts ), grow (find new contacts to extend the network), and communicate with your social network. This includes, email, IRC, blogs, as well as Ryze, Friendster, etc.

Second, the two goals of software enabled social networking are

1 - To manage more than 150 contacts that we could probably do effectively on paper or in our heads, and

2 - To move this new extended network beyond merely an online set of "friends" to a real-world set of contacts who affiliate/meet/collaborate (in general participate in shared activities), around shared purposes/interests.

In other words, it is not because you both like red wine, that you connect, but because you like it enough to for a friendship around wine tasting events. The members of your wine tasting "group" actually meet to taste wine, hear about new wines, learn about viniculture, etc. And they form relationships based on all the extra connections that come from being in the wine tasting group space together - in other words they form a small community.

If Social Networking Software does not contribute to a shift from online contact to real-world interactions, then it will not survive. So the key is the ability to form Networks/Tribes, etc and Create Events that people actually attend.

If Churches, and Book Clubs, Fraternities, and Sports Teams are examples of Real-world affiliations that can be successful in forming real friendships. How can social networking software facilitate 1 & 2 above. Can the software enable you to manage a network beyond 150 people, and can the software enable you to get together with some subset of these people around a shared activity (like church, or politics, or sports, etc).

If SNS cannot do this then maybe it has degenerated into a form of entertainment, where you can play with the pictures and interests of others to form endless webs of potential connections that never really come to anything - wasting time doing this can be entertaining, but it is not social networking.

Marovingian's Cake

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:41:15 GMT

By the end of the century, we will probably be able to mimic the "love" chemistry. That could sure help a lot of relationships, and prevent a few others from developing inappropriately.

Reminds me of the Marovingian.

This is your brain in love. In a fascinating new book, evolutionary anthropologist Helen Fisher examines the chemistry responsible for the giddiness, fixations and overarching lunacy associated with romantic love. [Salon.com]

Orthodoxy vs Revision - Neither seems to answer my questions. Catholic Encyclopedia - Monism Definition

Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:51:39 GMT

I did a quick search on Monism, since it was the EVIL way of viewing the world according to the below post. Core issue here is deconstruction of orthodoxy by redefining language and reconstruction of a new orthodoxy (or rather a new religion) by substituting language. This definition looked pretty comprehensive.

What is clear is a sense of starting with orthodoxy and then altering it in a uncoordinated fashion by a number of constituencies to look like a combination of:

secular humanism - be all that you can be
hindu-like panthiestic (monism) - just learn to be part of the great oneness, and
feminist wiccanism - here's a bunch of rituals to help you be / do no harm, then do what you will.

My sense is that these "distortions" are reaching for something new, but are anchored for some reason to an orthodox christian point of departure. Not anchored to orthodoxy itself, except as a concept to be refuted.

So what is this "new thing" being called Christianity? I am looking for a clear answer, but so far, it has been blurry. Maybe that's telling....

Of course, there are whole chunks of stuff where I am not in alignment with orthodoxy - but my differences from orthodoxy do not seem to be related to this crisis... Further, the path that led to this new crisis fits even less well. AAAARGHH.

=================================================

Monism

(From the Greek monos, "one", "alone", "unique").

Monism is a philosophical term which, in its various meanings, is opposed to Dualism or Pluralism. Wherever pluralistic philosophy distinguishes a multiplicity of things, Monism denies that the manifoldness is real, and holds that the apparently many are phases, or phenomena, of a one. Wherever dualistic philosophy distinguishes between body and soul, matter and spirit, object and subject, matter and force, the system which denies such a distinction, reduces one term of the antithesis to the other, or merges both in a higher unity, is called Monism.

I. IN METAPHYSICS

The ancient Hindu philosophers stated as a fundamental truth that the world of our sense-experience is all illusion (maya), that change, plurality, and causation are not real, that there is but one reality, God. This is metaphysical Monism of the idealistic-spiritual type, tending towards mysticism.

Among the early Greek philosophers, the Eleatics, starting, like the Hindus, with the conviction that sense-knowledge is untrustworthy, and reason alone reliable, reached the conclusion that change, plurality, and origination do not really exist, that Being is one, immutable, and eternal. They did not explicitly identify the one reality with God, and were not, so far as we know, inclined to mysticism. Their Monism, therefore, may be said to be of the purely idealistic type.

These two forms of metaphysical Monism recur frequently in the history of philosophy; for instance, the idealistic-spiritual type in neo-Platonism and in Spinoza's metaphysics, and the purely idealistic type in the rational absolutism of Hegel.

Besides idealistic Monism there is Monism of the materialistic type, which proclaims that there is but one reality, namely, matter, whether matter be an agglomerate of atoms, a primitive, world-forming substance (see IONIAN SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY), or the so-called cosmic nebula out of which the world evolved.

There is another form of metaphysical Monism, represented in these days by Haeckel and his followers, which, though materialistic in its scope and tendency, professes to transcend the point of view of materialistic Monism and unite both matter and mind in a higher something. The weak point of all metaphysical Monism is its inability to explain how, if there is but one reality, and everything else is only apparent there can be any real changes in the world, or real relations among things. This difficulty is met in dualistic systems of philosophy by the doctrine of matter and form, or potency and actuality, which are the ultimate realities in the metaphysical order. Pluralism rejects the solution offered by scholastic dualism and strives, with but little success, to oppose to Monism its own theory of synechism or panpsychism (see PRAGMATISM). The chief objection to materialistic Monism is that it stops short of the point where the real problem of metaphysics begins.

II. IN THEOLOGY

The term Monism is not much used in theology because of the confusion to which its use would lead. Polytheism, the doctrine that there are many gods, has for its opposite Monotheism, the doctrine that there is but one God. If the term Monism is employed in place of Monotheism, it may, of course, mean Theism, which is a monotheistic doctrine, or it may mean Pantheism, which is opposed to theism. In this sense of the term, as a synonym for Pantheism, Monism maintains that there is no real distinction between God and the universe. Either God is indwelling in the universe as a part of it, not distinct from it (pantheistic Immanentism), or the universe does not exist at all as a reality (Acosmism), but only as a manifestation or phenomenon of God. These views are vigorously combated by Theism, not only on considerations of logic and philosophy, but also on considerations of human life and conduct. For the ethical implications of pantheism are as detrimental to it as its shortcomings from the point of view of consistency and reasonableness. Theism does not deny that God is indwelling in the universe; but it does deny that He is comprised in the universe. Theism does not deny that the universe is a manifestation of God; but it does deny that the universe has no reality of its own. Theism is, therefore, dualistic: it holds that God is a reality distinct from the universe and independent of it, and that the universe is a reality distinct from God, though not independent of Him. From another point of view, theism is monistic; it maintains that there is but One Supreme Reality and that all other reality is derived from Him. Monism is not then an adequate equivalent of the term Theism.

III. IN PSYCHOLOGY

The central problem of rational psychology is the question of the relation between soul and body. Scholastic dualism, following Aristotle, maintains, that man is one substance, composed of body and soul, which are respectively matter and form. The soul is the principle of life, energy, and perfection; the body is the principle of decay, potentiality, and imperfection. These two are not complete substances: their union is not accidental, as Plato thought, but substantial. They are, of course, really distinct, and even separable; yet they act on each other and react. The soul, even in its highest functions, needs the co-operation, at least extrinsic, of the body, and the body in all its vital functions is energized by the soul as the radical principle of those functions. They are not so much two in one as two forming one compound. In popular imagination this dualism may be exaggerated; in the mind of the extreme ascetic it sometimes is exaggerated to the point of placing a too sharp contrast between "the flesh" and "the spirit", "the beast" and "the angel", in us.

Psychological Monism tends to obliterate all distinction between body and soul. This it does in one of three ways.

(A) Monism of the materialistic type reduces the soul to matter or material conditions, and thus, in effect, denies that there is any distinction between soul and body. The Stoics described the soul as a part of the material world-substance; the Epicureans held that it is a compound of material atoms; modern Materialism knows no substantial soul except the nervous system; Cabanis, for instance, proclaims his materialism in the well-known Crude formula: "The brain digests impressions, and organically secretes thought." Psychological materialism, as metaphysical materialism, closes its eyes to those phenomena of the soul which it cannot explain, or even denies that such phenomena exist.
(B) Monism of the idealistic type takes an entirely opposite course. It reduces the body to mind or mental conditions. Some of the neo-Platonists held that all matter is non-existent, that our body is, therefore, an error on the part of our minds, and that the soul alone is the personality.
John Scotus Eriugena, influenced by the neo-Platonists, held the body to be a resultant from incorporeal qualities which the soul, by thinking them and synthesizing them, creates into a body for itself. In modern times, Berkeley included the human body in his general denial of the reality of matter, and maintained that there are no substances except the soul and God. The grounds for this belief are epistemological. Psychological Monism runs counter to common sense and experience. Historically, it is a reaction against materialism. To refute materialism it is not necessary to deny that the body is a reality. The unreflecting dualism of common sense and the scientific dualism which the Scholastics built on the facts of experience steer a safe and consistent course between the hasty generalization of the Materialist, who sees nothing but body, and the bold paradox of the Idealist, who recognizes no reality except mind.
(C) A third kind of psychological Monism goes by the name of psychophysical parallelism. It maintains two principles, the one negative and the other affirmative. First, it denies categorically that there is, or can be, any direct causal influence of the soul on the body or of the body on the soul: our thoughts cannot produce the movements of our muscles, neither can the action of light on the retina produce in us the "thought" of a colour. Secondly, it affirms in some shape or form that both the body and the soul are phases of something else, that this something evolves its activities along two parallel lines, the physical and the psychical, so that the thought, for instance, of moving my hand is synchronous with the motion of my hand, without one in any way influencing the other. This is the doctrine of Occasionalists who, like Malebranche, (q. v.), maintain that the union of the soul and body "consists in a mutual and natural correspondence of the thoughts of the soul with the processes of the brain, and of the emotions of the soul with the movements of the animal spirits" (Rech. de la Vérité, II, v). It is the doctrine of Spinoza, whose metaphysical Monism compelled him to hold that body and soul are merely aspects of the one substance, God, under the attributes extension and thought, but that they unfold their modes of activity in a manner preordained to correspondence (Eth., II, ii, schol.). Leibniz meets the difficulty in his own characteristic way by teaching that all monads are partly material and partly immaterial, and that among all monads and their activities there exists a pre-established harmony (see LEIBNIZ; MONAD). In the so-called Identitätsphilosophic of some German Transcendentalists, such as Schelling, reality is mind in so far as it is active, and matter in so far as it is passive; mind and matter are, therefore, two harmonious, but independent, series of phases of reality. Fechner's view is similar: he holds that the reality pervading the whole universe is at once physical and psychical, that the physical is the "exterior" and the psychical the "interior", or "inner", side of reality, and that the body and soul in man are but one instance of a parellelism which prevails everywhere in nature. Paulsen ("Introd. to Phil.", tr. Thilly, 87 sqq.) holds that "two propositions are contained in the theory of parallelism: (I) Physical processes are never effects of psychical processes; (2) Psychical processes are never effects of physical processes." He adopts Fechner's panpsychism, maintaining that "everything corporeal points to something else, an inner, intelligible element, a being for itself, which is akin to what we experience within ourselves". Both the corporeal and the "inner" are parts of the universal system, which is the body of God, and, though they do not interact, they act in such a way that harmony results.

Herbert Spencer uses the word parallelism in a slightly different sense: the separate impressions of the senses and the stream of inner conscious states must be adjusted by the activity of the mind, if the two series are to be of any use to the developing or evolving animal or man; that is, there must be a parallelism between a certain physical evolution and the correlative psychical evolution" (Principles of Psych., n. 179), while both mind and matter are mere "symbols of some form of Power absolutely and forever unknown to us" (op. cit., n. 63). This idea finds favour among the evolutionists generally, and has one distinct advantage: it obviates the necessity of explaining many phenomena of mind which could not be accounted for by the principles of materialistic evolution. Thus, under the name "double-aspect theory" it is adopted by Clifford, Bain, Lewes, and Huxley. Among empirical psychologists parallelism has been found satisfactory as a "working hypothesis". Experience, it is maintained, tells us nothing of a substantial soul that acts on the body and is acted upon. It does tell us, however, that psychical states are apparently conditioned by bodily states, and that states of body apparently influence states of mind. For the purposes of science, conclude the empiricists, it is enough to maintain as an empirical formula that the two streams of activity are, so to speak, parallel, though never confluent. There is no need to ground the formula on any universal metaphysical theory, such as the pan-psychism of Fechner and Paulsen. lt is enough that, as Wundt points out, the facts of experience establish a correspondence between physical and psychical, while the dissimilarity of the physical and the psychical precludes the possibility of one being the cause of the other. To all these parallelistic explanations of the relations between soul and body the Scholastic dualists take exception. First, the scholastics call attention to the verdict of experience. Up to a certain point, the facts of experience are capable of a parallelistic, as well as of a dualistic, explanation. But when we come to consider the unity of consciousness, which is a fact of experience, we find that the theory of parallelism breaks down, and the only explanation that holds is that of dualists, who maintain the substantiality of the soul. Secondly, if the parallelistic theory be true, what, ask the Scholastic dualists, becomes of the freedom of the will and moral responsibility? If our mental and bodily states are not to be referred to an immediate personal subject, but are considered phases or aspects of a universal substance, a cosmic soul, mind-stuff, or unknown "form of Power", it is not easy to see in what sense the will can be free, and man be held responsible for his mental or bodily acts.

In a minor sense the word monism is sometimes used in psychology to designate the doctrine that there is no real distinction between the soul and its faculties. Psychological dualism holds that soul and body are distinct, though incomplete, substances. But how about the soul itself? Plato's doctrine that it has three parts has had very little following in philosophy. Aristotle distinguished between the substance of the soul and its powers (dynameis), or faculties, and bequeathed to the Schoolmen the problem whether these faculties are really, or only notionally, distinct from the soul itself. Those who favour the real distinction are sometimes called pluralists in psychology, and their opponents, who say that the distinction is nominal or, at most, notional, are sometimes called psychological Monists. The question is decided by inferences from the facts of consciousness. Those who hold real distinction of function argue that this is sufficient ground for a real distinction of faculties.

IV. IN EPISTEMOLOGY

As in psychology, Monism is used in various senses to signify, in a general way, the antithesis of dualism. The Dualist in epistemology agrees with the ordinary observer, who distinguishes both in theory and in practice between "things" and "thoughts". Common sense, or unreflecting consciousness, takes things generally to be what they seem. It acts on the conviction that the internal world of our thoughts corresponds with the external world of reality. The philosophical dualist questions the extent and accuracy of that correspondence; he learns from psychology that many instances of so-called immediate perception have in them a large share of interpretation, and are, in so far, referable to the activity of the mind. Nevertheless, he sees no reason to quarrel with the general verdict of common sense that there is a world of reality outside us, as well as a world of representation within us, and that the latter corresponds in a measure to the former. He distinguishes, therefore, between subject and object, between self and not-self, and holds that the external world exists. The Monist in one way or another eliminates the objective from the field of reality, obliterates the distinction between self and not-self, and denies that the external world is real. Sometimes he takes the ground of idealism, maintaining that thoughts are things, that the only reality is perception, or rather, that a thing is real only in the sense that it is perceived, esse est percipi. He scornfully rejects the view of naïve realism, refers with contempt to the copy-theory (the view that our thoughts represent things) and is rather proud of the fact that he is in conflict with common sense. Sometimes he is a solipsist, holding that self alone exists, that the existence of not-self is an illusion, and that the belief in the existence of other minds than our own is a vulgar error. Sometimes, finally, he is an acosmist: he denies that the external world exists except in so far as it is thought to exist: or he affirms that we create our own external world out of our own thoughts.

However, the classical forum of epistemological Monism at the present time is known as Absolutism. Its fundamental tenet is metaphysical monism of the purely idealistic type. It holds that both subject and object are merely phases of an abstract, unlimited, impersonal consciousness called the Absolute; that neither things nor thoughts have any reality apart from the Absolute. It teaches that the universe is a rational and systematic whole, consisting of an intellectual "ground" and multiform "appearances" of that ground, one appearance being what the Realist calls things, and another what the Realist calls thoughts. This is the doctrine of the Hegelians, from Hegel himself down to his latest representatives, Bradley and McTaggart. All these forms of epistemological Monism — namely, idealism, solipsism, acosmism, and absolutism — have, of course, metaphysical bearings, and sometimes rest on metaphysical foundations. Nevertheless, historically speaking, they are traceable to a psychological assumption which is, and always will be, the dividing line between Dualism and Monism in epistemology. The Dualists, in their analysis of the act of knowing, call attention to the fact that in every process of perception the object is immediately given. It seems like emphasizing the obvious to say so, yet it is precisely on this point that the whole question turns. What I perceive is not a sensation of whiteness but a white object. What I taste is not the sensation of sweetness but a sweet substance. No matter how much the activity of the mind may elaborate, synthesize, or reconstruct the data of sense-perception, the objective reference cannot be the result of any such subjective activity; for it is given originally in consciousness. On the contrary, the Monist starts with the idealistic assumption that what we perceive is the sensation. Whatever objective reference the sensation has in our consciousness is conferred on it by the activity of the mind. The objective is, therefore, reducible to the subjective; things are thoughts; we make our world. In the dualist's analysis there is immediate, presentative contact in consciousness between the subject and the object. In the Monist's account of the matter there is a chasm between subject and object which must be bridged over somehow. The problem of Dualism or Monism in epistemology depends, therefore, for solution on the question whether perception is presentative or representative; and the dualist, who holds the presentative theory, seems to have on his side the verdict of introspective psychology as well as the approval of common sense.

In recent Pragmatist contributions to epistemology there is presented a different view of epistemological Monism from that given in the preceeding paragraphs, and a solution is offered which differs entirely from that of traditional dualism. In William James's works, for instance, Monism is described as that species of Absolutism which "thinks that the all-form or collective-unit form is the only form that is rational", while opposed to it is Pluralism, that is, the doctrine that "the each-form is an eternal form of reality no less than it is the form of temporal appearance" (A Pluralistic Universe, 324 sqq.). The multitude of "each-forms" constitute, not a chaos, but a cosmos, because they are "inextricably interfused" into a system. The unity, however, which exists among the "each-forms" of reality is not an integral unity nor an articulate or organic, much less a logical, unity. It is a unity "of the strung-along type, the type of continuity, contiguity, or concatenation" (op. cit., 325). Into this unfinished universe, into this stream of successive experiences, the subject steps at a certain moment. By a process which belongs, not to logic, but to life, which exceeds logic, he connects up these experiences into a concatenated series. In other words, he strings the single beads on a string, not of thought, but of the practical needs and purposes of life. Thus the subject makes his own world, and, really, we are not any better off than if we accepted the verdict of the intellectualistic Idealist. We have merely put the practical reason in place of the theoretical: so far as the value of knowledge is concerned the antithesis between Monism and Pluralism is more apparent than real, and the latter is as far from the saneness of realistic Dualism as the former. It is true that the Pluralist admits, in a sense, the existence of the external world; but so also does the Absolutist. The trouble is that neither admits it in a sense which would save the distinction between subject and object. For the Pluralist as well as the Monist is entangled in the web of subjective Idealism as soon as he favours the doctrine that perception is representative, not presentative.

V. IN COSMOLOGY

The central question is the origin of the universe. The early Ionian philosophers assigned, as the cause or principle (arche is the Aristotelian word) of the universe, a substance which is at once the material out of which the universe is made and the force by which it was made. As Aristotle says, they failed to distinguish between the material cause and the efficient cause. They were, therefore, dynamists and hylozoists. That is, they held matter to be of its nature active, and endowed with life. Without the aid of any extrinsic force, they said, the original substance, by a process of thickening and thinning, or by quenching and kindling, or in some other immanent way, gave rise to the universe as we now see it. This primitive cosmothetic Monism gradually gave way to a dualistic conception of the origin of the world. Tentatively at first, and then more decisively, the later Ionians introduced the notion of a primitive force, distinct from matter, which fashioned the universe out of the primordial substance. Anaxagoras it was, who, by clearly defining this force and describing it as mind (nous), earned the encomium of being the "first of the ancient philosophers who spoke sense". Dualism, thus introduced, withstood the onslaughts of materialistic Atomism and Epicureanism, pantheistic Stoicism and emanationistic neo-Platonism. It was developed by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who brought to their description of the world-forming process a higher notion of cosmothetic mind than the pre-Socratic philosophers possessed. It was left for the Christian philosophers of Alexandria and their successors, the Scholastics of medieval times, to elaborate the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, and thus bring out more clearly the rôle played by the Divine Power and Will in the formation of the universe. The order, harmony, and purposiveness evident everywhere in nature are cited by the creationists as evidence to show that mind must have presided at the origination of things. Furthermore, the question of dynamism or mechanism hinges on the problem of the nature of matter. This phase of the question has been developed especially in post-Cartesian philosophy, some maintaining that matter is essentially inert and must, therefore, have acquired force and activity from without, while others as stoutly maintain that matter is by nature active and, consequently, may have developed its own force from within. Evolution of the thorough going type takes the latter view. It holds that in the primitive cosmic matter was contained "the power and potency" of all life and movement, in such a way that no external agent was required in order to bring it to actual existence. Here, as in the question of Theism, Christian philosophy is frankly dualistic, although it acknowledges that, since actuality antecedes potency by nature and, as a matter of fact, the world originated in time, while God is eternal, there was, before creation, but One Reality.

VI. IN ETHICS

The word Monism is very little used. In some German works it is employed to designate the doctrine that the moral law is autonomous. Christian ethics is essentially heteronomic: it teaches that all law, even natural law, emanates from God. Kantian ethics and Evolutionistic ethics hold that the moral law is either self-imposed or emanates from the moral sense which is a product of the struggle for existence. In both the Kantian and the Evolutionistic systems there is only one source of the power of moral discrimination and approval. For this reason the word Monism is here used in its generic sense. In English philosophical literature, however, the word has no such signification. In accounting for the origin of evil, a problem which, though it belongs to metaphysics, has important bearings on ethical questions, some philosophers have adopted a Dualistic doctrine and explained that good and evil originate from two distinct principles, the one supremely good, the other completely and absolutely evil. This was the doctrine of the ancient Persians, from whom it was borrowed by Manes, the founder of the Manichean sect. Opposed to this is the Monistic view, that God is indeed the cause of all that is good in the universe, and that evil is not to be assigned to any supreme cause distinct from God. Whatever explanation be given of the existence of evil in the world, it is maintained that a supreme principle of evil is utterly impossible and even inconceivable.

VII. CONTEMPORARY MONISTIC MOVEMENTS AND SCHOOLS

In current philosophical literature, whenever no special qualification is added, Monism generally means the modified materialistic monism of Haeckel. Modern materialistic Monism in Germany begins with Feuerbach, a disciple of Hegel. Feuerbach was followed by Vogt and Moleschott. To these succeeded Haeckel, who combines Darwinian evolution with a materialistic interpretation of Spinoza and Bruno. Haeckel's works, both in the original and in English translations, have had a wide circulation, their popularity being due rather to the superficial manner in which Haeckel disposes of the most serious questions of metaphysics than to any intrinsic excellence of content or method. Haeckel is honorary president of the Monistenbund (Society of Monists), founded at Jena in 1906, for the purpose of propagating the doctrines of Monism. The society is openly anti-Christian, and makes active warfare against the Catholic Church. Its publications, "Der Monist" (a continuation of the "Freie Glocken" — first number, 1906), "Blätter des deutschen Monistenbunds" (first number, July, 1906), and various pamphlets (Flugblätter des Monistenbunds), are intended to be a campaign against Christian education and the union of Church and State.

The group of writers in America who, under the editorship of Dr. Paul Carus, have been identified with the "Monist" (Chicago, monthly, first number, Jan., 1891) are not, apparently, actuated by the same animosity against Christianity. Nevertheless, they hold Haeckel's fundamental tenet that Monism as a system of philosophy transcends Christianity as a form of belief, and is the only rational synthesis of science and religion. "Religious progress no less than scientific progress", writes Carus, "is a process of growth as well as a cleansing from mythology. . . . Religion is the basis of ethics. . . . The ideal of religion is the same as that of science, it is a liberation of the mythological elements and its aim is to rest upon a concise but exhaustive statement of facts" (Monism, Its Scope and Import, 8, 9). This "concise but exhaustive statement of facts" is positive Monism, the doctrine, namely, that the whole of reality constitutes one inseparable and indivisible entirety. Monism is not the doctrine that one substance alone, whether it be mind or matter, exists: such a theory, says Dr. Carus, is best designated as Henism. True Monism "bears in mind that our words are abstracts representing parts or features of the One and All, and not separate existences" (op. cit., 7). This Monism is Positivistic, because its aim is "the systematisation of knowledge, that is, of a description of facts" (ibid.). "Radical free thought" is the motto of this school of Monism; at the same time, it disclaims all sympathy with destructive Atheism, Agnosticism, Materialism, and Negativism in general. Nevertheless, the untrained student of philosophy will be likely to be more profoundly influenced by the Monistic criticism of Christianity than by the constructive effort to put something in place of the errors referred to.

All Monism may be described as resulting from the tendency of the human mind to discover unitary concepts under which to subsume the manifold of experience. So long as we are content to take and preserve the world of our experience as we find it, with all its manifoldness, variety, and fragmentation, we are in the condition of primitive man, and little better than brute animals. As soon as we begin to reflect on the data of the senses, we are led by an instinct of our rational nature to reduce manifold effects to the unity of a causal concept. This we first do in the scientific plane. Afterwards, carrying the process to a higher plane, we try to unify these under philosophical categories, such as substance and accident, matter and force, body and mind, subject and object. The history of philosophy, however, shows with unmistakable clearness that there is a limit to this unifying process in philosophy. If Hegel were right, and the formula, "The rational alone is real", were true, then we should expect to be able to compass all reality with the mental powers which we possess. But, Christian philosophy holds, the real extends beyond the domain of the (finite) rational. Reality eludes our attempt to compress it within the categories which we frame for it. Consequently, Dualism is often the final answer in philosophy; and Monism, which is not content with the partial synthesis of Dualism, but aims at an ideal completeness, often results in failure. Dualism leaves room for faith, and hands over to faith many of the problems which philosophy cannot solve. Monism leaves no room for faith. The only mysticism that is compatible with it is rationalistic, and very different from that "vision" in which, for the Christian mystic, all the limitations, imperfections, and other shortcomings of our feeble efforts are removed by the light of faith.

See works referred to under METAPHYSICS; also, VEITCH, Dualism and Monism (London, 1895): WARD, Naturalism and Agnosticism (2 vols., London, 1899); ROYCE, The World and the Individual (New York, 1901); BAKEWELL, Pluralism and Monism in Philos. Rev., VII (1898), 355 sqq.; BOWEN, Dualism, Materialism or Idealism in Princeton Rev., I (1878), 423 sqq.; GURNEY, Monism in Mind, VI (1881), 153 sqq.; Articles in Monist (1891-); ADICKES, Kant contra Haeckel (Berlin, 1901); GUTBERLET, Der mechanische Monismus (Paderborn, 1893); ENGERT, Der naturalistiche Monismus Haeckels (Berlin, 1907); DREWS, Der Monismus (Leipzig, 1908); Articles by KLINIKE in Jahrbuch für Phil. u. Spek. Theol. (1905, 1906); MALTESE, Monismo e nichilismo (2 vols., Vittoria, 1887); ABATE, Il monismo nelle diverse forme (Catania, 1893); HAECKEL, Der Monismus als Band zwischen Religion und Wissenschaft, tr, GILCHRIST (London, 1894); IDEM, Die Welträthsel, tr. McCABE (London, 1900). On Carus's School of Monism, besides The Monist (1891-) and The Open Court (pub. fortnightly, first number, Feb. 17, 1887), cf. CARUS, Primer of Philosophy (Chicago. 1896); IDEM, Fundamental Problems (Chicago, 1894); IDEM, Monism, Its Scope and Import (Chicago. 1891).

WILLIAM TURNER
Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter
Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X
Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight
Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Way to go Patriots! ReplayTV is back up and running!

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:42:21 GMT

Yes I did watch the game! Great game, unless you work for Eli Lilly.

Finally got my ReplayTV 4320 back from the shop (Replay repair service). The hard drive had crapped out. So, after a looong time on the phone, I was able to return it and pay a mere $200 to fix it. Note that this is the cost of new machines! But what can I say, it is a mission critical piece of equipment in our home.

The one month of TV hell that we had to live through without it was almost unbearable. Ads! Oh my God! They are horrible! They are Attention Deficit Disorder inducing! Further, they are often entirely inappropriate for my young children - even if shown during an entirely appropriate TV show.

Did start watching a lot more of the new reality tv stuff - Mission Organization, American Chopper, Queer Eye, Monster House, Date Patrol... Never really saw much of these before. But I guess that was because there was ALWAYS SOMETHING GOOD TO WATCH on Replay!

As to the game, I had to drive my daughter to a friends house just around 3 pm. So I was missing the kickoff etc. But I got home, and let my wife continue her nap for a half hour, popped a pot of popcorn (yes the old fashioned way with oil in a pot). Then we turned on the Game!

It was amazing on a couple fronts - first the game was great. Snowing and real grass! Great plays, lots of interceptions and fumbles! All around fun to watch. And, on Replay, it was EVEN BETTER!

We could do our own instant replay. We could pause when the phone rang - or when making dinner. It automatically skipped the ads (A feature that we will turn off during the Superbowl, but here it was just fine). And, by the time the game was over, we had caught up to the realtime showing of the event!

Triumph for the Patriots and Triumph for ReplayTV.