After an extensive discussion with a friend involving belief, rationality, numerology, science, psychology and all other sorts of big picture matters, we have concluded that there are three types of believers (at least within the context of Judaism):
The tough question is: which is the biggest fool?
I think I’m probably stating the obvious here. If we take a single trace of an article such as Tom Cruise through the category hierarchy in Wikipedia, we find out that he is merely a theory…
Tom Cruise → 1962 births → 1960s births → 20th century births → Births by year → People → Humans → Apes → Primates → Mammals → Vertebrates → Chordates → Animals → Eukaryotes → Organisms → Life → Core issues in ethics → Ethics → Branches of philosophy → Philosophy → Belief → Spirituality → Human behaviour → Behaviour → Branches of psychology → Psychology → Interdisciplinary fields → Academic disciplines → Academia → Education → Personal development → Personal life → Self → Metaphysics → Reality → Philosophical concepts → Philosophical terminology → Terminology → Vocabulary → Language → Communication → Social psychology → Social philosophy → Philosophical movements → Movements → Ideologies → Epistemology → Philosophy of science → Analytic philosophy → 20th century philosophy → 20th century → 2nd millenium → Millenia → Years → Chronology → Measurement → Scientific observation → Data collection → Data management → Computer data → Computer storage → Computer memory → Digital media → Digital technology → Electronics → Electromagnetism → Special relativity → Relativity → Theoretical physics → Theories → …
And yes, this isn’t completely irrelevant. It relates to my honours research work. It means that the Wikipedia category hierarchy is only useful as a folksonomy, or perhaps only for a very small hierarchical depth beneath each article…
After a few articles about “Al-Naqba” in the AJN, I wrote to suggest that they should be using a k and not a q:
There is no q in “Al-Naqba”. The Arabic spelling includes the equivalent of a Hebrew kaf, not their quf.
It seems ‘q’ is used, often by Jewish sources, to Arabise the word and make it seem more foreign and distasteful.
Even the spellings of words can express one’s biases, just as “Moslem”, once an accepted variant, is now considered more derogatory than “Muslim”.
The AJN should utilise the more neutral and accurate spellings, and write articles on “Nakba” rather than “Naqba”.
The printed letter stops after the second paragraph, which I maybe should have made more clear: I do not accuse the Jewish press of a conspiracy to use a stigmatised spelling variant. Language is more subtle and subconscious than that.
I try not to dictate others’ language use. In the case of a newspaper, though, there are always editorial style guides, and I wanted to point out two factors in the spelling of this word:
Of course, the word is naturally not a neutral word, whichever way it is spelt. People will often react to it either with distate or with pride. Nonetheless, it shouldn’t be spelt in the “unbiased press” in a way that shows one’s side and one’s ignorance more than necessary.
I’ve updated the chart linked from my previous post to include an English translation. Thought that might help some people.
I will be singing next week at one of the communal commemorations for the Holocaust next Wednesday night. At first I was going to only be singing with the Sydney Jewish Choral Society (my usual Wednesday night entertainment), but they invited me also to sing El Male Rachamim (the memorial prayer) alone.
Not only do I have to work out the tune, but there seem to be a variety of texts for the purpose. This chart compares a few samples. Any bits people particularly like or don’t like??
I just remembered that I’m now well past page 123 of The Surgeon of Crowthorne (I’m well past the book’s end). Unfortunately, I can’t say that the 6th, 7th and 8th sentences on the page (see the meme) are the most exciting:
Each and every time he found a word that piqued his interest he wrote it down, in tiny, almost microscopic letters, in its proper position on the eight-page quire he had made. The unique manner of his procedure was soon to become a hallmark of Minor’s astonishing accuracy and eye for detail.
I used to write in tiny, almost microscopic letters. It was actually somewhat more legible than my usual scrawl.
I never wrote any entries for a dictionary, though, which is the subject of this book: a man with paranoid schitzophrenia who made an enormous contribution to the Oxford English Dictionary from his padded cell. The book also uses this as a channel through which to marvel at the creation of the OED, whose concept of popular collaboration, along with its “complete” historical review of the English language, had been revolutionary and extraordinary (and in many ways still is). One could say it was really Dictionary 2.0.
Yes, you might see parallel’s to our contemporary grand collaboration, Wikipedia (which I have contributed to). Though it is much more based around consensus (or it would like to be) than editorial subtleties, and is a little more post-modern than to be concerned with extactitudes on some topics. And there is also an important immediacy factor playing a role in modern (espeically collaborative) media that wasn’t there before. And of course the monstrosity of Wikipedia brings me back to my honours work, which really I should be doing right about now…
So I guess even with a poor effort from myself, I have to tag. (For the tagged, take 6-8th sentences of p. 123 of nearest book, discuss and pass on as per meme.) I’m curious to hear what Alicia and Eve are reading in their respective corners of Asia. And Frikle has good literature. And DLC might find an interesting word to talk about on the 123rd page of some book. And, why not, my brother. See if he has the time for books at the moment…
Yay. My first not-so-viral meme over and done with!
I should read Simon Holloway’s blog more often. Not only do I enjoy his clearly-put insights, but I managed to miss by over a month the one time he was tagged in a blog meme and decided to tag me in turn. As he puts it:
Pick up the nearest book of 123 pages or more. (No cheating!)
Find Page 123.
Find the first 5 sentences.
Post the next 3 sentences.
Tag 5 people.
Now for him this meant not only quoting from Waltke and O’Connor’s, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, but then discussing the fascinating notion of honorific plurals in Biblical Hebrew (among things).
Not all of us keep quite as neat a desk as Simon, though.
Mine is packed with relics from various moments of the past months of my life, as well as long before that, and some quite useless things indeed. Some day I’ll clean it. (My desk at uni is cleaner, but still piled with papers left by its last occupant!)
Now, the nearest book to me happens to be the university diary I don’t use. While it has more than 123 pages, it doesn’t number them, so I’m defaulting to the second-nearest book, which is The Surgeon of Crowthorne by Simon Winchester.
And thus, after such a long prologue, I’m going to cop out. I’m not up to page 123 yet, and I don’t intend to tell you what it says there until I am. So this post is more an IOU than anything. (If you’re in suspense and want to speed up the reading process, you could try poisoning my food with laxatives.)
First, Keren became USyd’s sample student. Now this:
Trudi told me he was everywhere. But it was hard to avoid a full-page in Honi Soit…
The last two to three weeks have been pretty trying for Israel. But I happen to want to talk about the two weeks before then, just to give a few highlights (fairly extensive highlights?) from my trip to Israel for my brother’s wedding. (more…)
The Third Commandment treats the matter of mistreating God’s name quite bluntly:
Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not acquit one who takes His name in vain.
Rashi follows the translation of Onkelos in suggesting that the repeated “taking in vain” is once an injunction against those who swear by the Name falsely, and once against those who swear needlessly.
Judaism abounds in traditions of protecting the sanctity of Divine Names in writing, and avoiding them in speech except when necessary. In fact, (להבדיל) the Rabbinic manner of protecting the divine name has taken on characteristics commonly found in linguistic taboo associated with swearing (the other type), euphemism, or political correctness. (more…)
Powered by WordPress