Saturday, December 22, 2007

Word of the Day: Rogation

The Latin rogaré, 'to raise (one's hand) in a linear direction', has an interesting and ambiguous past. It is unclear, to begin with, whether the word should imply a reaching out towards somebody/something, a reaching out to provide, or a reaching out to receive. At the same time, the Indo-European root of this word is also the root from which words like 'reign', 'rule', 'ruthless' and 'rectitude' appear to come from.

The English word 'rogation', of ecclesiastical Latin descent (i.e., from rogationis), refers to the ancient practice of conducting a prayer walk for supplication, thanksgiving, and the theurgic invocation of protection and blessing around a piece of land. Early Protestants frowned on this 'Papist practice', but their theological descendants are perfectly cheerful about this practice of pagan origin. It remains to this day enshrined in myths about boundary-marking and the annual practice of asserting one's rights by the 'beating of bounds'.

What's interesting about this idea of 'rogation' – to reach out, to raise up, to give or to receive – is the addition of prepositional prefixes to give a whole range of related words of decidedly curious diversity. There are quite a number.

'Derogation' refers to the lowering of rogation; it implies a turning away of the hand, thus demeaning or lowering the worth of a relationship (or the person involved in the relationship) or transaction (or the object involved in the transaction). Words that are derogatory (such as 'idiot' or 'moron' under current usage) are intended to demean or to frame someone in poorer light.

'Abrogation' refers to a rogation that is denied or cast away; it implies a breaking of a relationship, a termination or other voiding of contract, a crossing of lines not meant to be crossed. To abrogate a treaty is to render it void by transgression or fiat. An act of abrogation is not a friendly one.

'Prorogation' refers to the act of extending a hand further; in the past, this was understood to be a request for further rights, or the extension of a time limit or other constraint. At present, this word seems to imply the extension of something held over or held in abeyance; to prorogue a point of discussion is now to hold it over till the next meeting.

'Surrogation' (more commonly known through the word 'surrogate') refers to the act of placing one hand beneath another, thus substituting that which is already in place with something of the same capacity or ability. Of course, in actual fact, this often meant substituting the left hand for the right hand (in a right-handed person), vice versa for a left-hander.

'Interrogation' refers to a double act of asking and receiving in order; when one is interrogated, the interrogator is reaching out and expects to be responded to. Hence, the word has come to mean 'questioning' – and by extension through the long and dark history of various inquisitions, 'putting to the question'.

'Supererogation' refers to the act of granting more than is requested or doing more than is needed. The hand reaches out and receives more, does more, or gives more than it is expected to do. It also refers to the practice of abundant generosity in service or in giving to those in need. It can be used of divine grace which blesses or forgives the unworthy.

'Prerogation' (more commonly known by its result, a 'prerogative') comes from the idea of holding out one's hand in advance, thus perhaps 'cutting the queue' or receiving something by interception or preemption; of course, it can also imply giving out something to someone before you give it to others. A prerogative is something that is granted to a person which is not granted as freely to others.

'Arrogation' (more commonly known through the French-English 'arrogance') refers to the act of raising one's hand to seize or to bring something towards oneself. This applies to rights, objects, privileges, wealth, status or anything else which might be conferred or bestowed. It presumes and assumes in the presumption, so to speak.

I am sure that my readers can find more examples. What I find interesting is the idea that old verbs, with roots in languages which no longer exist as such, can have so many useful descendants. Time brings variety; however, only when the root is useful and well-supplied (and capable of manifold prepositional extension) does that variety thrive.

Labels: ,

Monday, July 30, 2007

Here Be Dragons

I wrote this story 20 years ago, when I was young and the memories were fresh. Shiv has spoken of magic-realism. There is some truth in this; the supernal is everywhere, and all things possess a surreal nature which transcends the mundane. This is a very long post, and if I apologise for it, it is because it might not be good enough. But it's mine. I wrote it in 1987 and it was first published in Tesseract, the Science Fiction Association (Singapore) magazine, 1st Quarter 1991. This version is almost completely free of edits. Almost.

=====

I:

Al, as usual, was a bronze dragon: intelligent, romantic but a little cynical, satisfied with the quality of his life. We sat in a pizza restaurant somewhere along Bukit Timah Road with wine and pasta before us, and journeys behind us. We spoke of futures, as mythical figures often do. I was trying my hardest to be a sorcerer: mysterious but unsure, skilled but unwise. I looked sidelong at him, trying to read his careful expression.

"When you're out of national service, what will you do?"

"Become a geologist," he replied. "I've been reading this book on the tropical rain-forest.

"What's that got to do with geology?"

"Nothing, really. Why?"

I sighed. A dragon should know better, was what I thought; although, of course, you shouldn't say such things to them. This one was a friend, though. I waited for the explanation.

He continued, as if unveiling a surprise, "Really, I'm interested in plate tectonics." He paused for a while, looked at me expectantly. I remained, inscrutably, a sorcerer.

"Continental drift, earthquakes, that sort of thing." Musingly, he said, mostly to himself, "The rain-forest book had some very good photographs in it; I would have bought it, but it was rather expensive."

Dragons are like that - they window-shop a lot. What they do buy, they hoard. Bronze dragons have an entertaining little quirk: unlike most other dragons, they don't believe so much in possessing things. Intellectual property is more their sort of stuff. When looking at grimoires or enchiridia, if the price asked is too great, they'll haunt the book, but not buy it unless they must. They'd rather visit it respectfully from time to time, memorizing it in little bits. The reason dragons keep the company of sorcerers is that they find it convenient to borrow books from them. And why do sorcerers keep the company of dragons? Ah, because they make marvellously entertaining companions, of course.

The conversation faded into the background. It went on while the rain came outside, borne by the thin wind and the storm. Amber light glinted through the sharp and rainy night on the windowpanes. I was thinking of dragons. Maybe, dragons were thinking of me. I'd known lots of them. It's always useful for a magician to be able to understand and speak to dragons.

Mentally, a review.

My friend Shen, a silver dragon: without certain purpose though of great rational intelligence, a good friend but subject to temperamental instability, lethal when roused. Like most of his kind, he excelled at games of skill and reason. He'd been one of our best chess-players until he'd gone seeking wisdom elsewhere: the arts of healing, in the English midlands. Shen still writes with great conviction mixed with many questions on the nature of things.

Sean, on the other hand, is a red dragon, one of a bright and savage race. He's got typical red traits: a tendency towards violent solutions and fiery resolutions, gracefully aesthetic artistic abilities, extraordinary strength and endurance. The red dragon is a beast of a thousand contradictions. This fellow plays the piano, behaves impeccably in unfamiliar company. He's also been known to run after people, knife in hand.

Al's saying something about Sean.

"... so I gave him a lift to this girl's house. He said she had reddish hair, which he thought was rather exotic. I misheard him: I thought he'd said 'erotic'."

Indeed, Sean's a red, even down to his colour sensitivity.

The bronze dragon looks curiously at me. "Did you say something?"

I speak almost by reflex. "Two days ago, I met a female unicorn. I asked her to marry me, and she told me to wait five years, and she'd consider it then. It's hard to snare a unicorn, even if you are a virgin."

Al snorts. He's definitely got a streak of the horse dragon in him: a passive, almost docile, disregard for authority. He's not the rapacious sort of dragon, stocking up on bright gems and fair maidens. Several pretty girls have caught his eye, but only one has caught his heart. He's the sort who will wait, regardless of how many graduate and remain unmarried.

Likewise, Shen. The heart of the silver dragon is a noble one; once lit by a spark of idealism, its flame will not die. They mate for life, and so, the other must be perfect in the dragon's eyes. The friendship of a silver is legendary: a flood would not quench it. And I, a sorcerer, only wonder that I have known such a one.

The wine dwindles in the candlelight, as if it fuels those distant flames. We let it flow away untapped, although it was within our talents to have taken that magic for our use. I smile reflectively. Perhaps I should've been a dragon too, forever chasing after a precious pearl and never knowing its true beauty for my own. A sea-dragon, then, glinting copper-gold on deep armour forged of greenness and of light? She'd not have cared, no, not for dragon, not for the sorcerer within, not for the man in sorcerer's guise. She'd have wanted to know it all, mercilessly all, exceedingly well. There's a formula to these things, and most sorcerers know it: when a sorcerer is no longer inscrutable, he is no more a magician.

"What shall we do after this?" he asks, as dinner draws to a close. (Time has passed. The mind hides between times; it hides in the bones of things, iron in tall buildings, granite in my country's spine, our own bones. The underlying reality is mightier than the obvious. It is a larger, more complete world.)

Time kept passing by for a while. We were passengers waiting for an altogether different train, and it was a sluggish river full of fish and winter ice. As the wine disappeared, along with the pasta, I cast a line into the water. "Whatever. The vehicle is yours; let it carry what it will, to wherever it will go."

The river rolled on, serene. It was too lazy to care.

I found myself outside, on the main road with Al. The rain had tapered off to a thin, whispering drizzle. The old white chariot, a driving-instructor's oldest vehicle it seemed, was waiting as always, and it sighed with chill and impatience. A mellow knocking rose about us as Al ignited the flame within, and as its sweet breath caught fire, we fell away into the outer ring. The world receded, a pebble in the pond.

The night was cold, and dry despite the rain. It was as if the world were a vast eternal sponge, absorbing softly all the waters of the upper air. Al said to me, not really questioning, "You've been thinking about dragons again?"

"Yes," I answered, "And I've decided you're a bronze."

He kept his hands on the wheel, mulling it over. Then, "Let's go visit Pat," he said, chuckling. "She won't mind entertaining a dragon, although his wizardly friend may be a matter for doubt."

I remained inscrutable. My profession would serve me well for a while yet, I knew. In the darkness, under deep shadow, the sorcerer's heart sang like an iron bell, and stopped.


II:

Pat. A fire rises, yellow, normal, friendly, an enemy, a tree, a diamond. As Amergin, bard of bards, said, I have been many things. Yet, Pat has been nothing save whatever she has wanted to be, and occasionally, I look for her, hoping to find my place.

Tonight, the night melts in parts. Like a womb, a shaft of light, a chariot of flame, Al's old nag carries the darkness before her. Darkness looming, blooming. Darkness. Amber light growing, glowing. Amber fading. Darkness comes again. Every few moments, each time the cycles come and go, the same cycles. How many revolutions per minute, of death and rebirth? The chariot lunges on, forever chasing its lost horses, the golden destriers of the sun.

We talk to Pat because it is convenient, and if not, we don't.

I am the Magician, I told myself once, juggler of the metaphysical, he who reassures others of their innocence. I might have been wrong. I might be the Sun, triumphant always, yet ever constrained to repeat the cycle of his life over the endless circles of the world.

In the library of the heart, I strain the metaphor, and nothing much is left behind. Pat is a Wheel of Fortune, Chance, the smallest of God's fingers. There too, I was nearly wrong: I thought of her as Temperance once. But Temperance, her dreams are less troubled, and her blessings more comfortable.

Looking out of the left window, the National Junior College sits easily, like a colony of petrified monks after vespers, more befuddled than sinister. Al says, "Have you read anything interesting recently?"

The sorcerer looks at the inquisitive dragon. Indeed he has, he thinks. He has read The White Goddess, by that flawed but brilliant master, Robert Graves. The sorcerer parts his lips; I speak.

" 'I was with my Lord in the highest sphere / On the fall of Lucifer into the depths of Hell, / I have borne a banner before Alexander; / I know the names of the stars from North to South...' and it goes on, Al; Graves works a new tapestry from Taliesin the bard, and you might be interested. I'll lend the book to you some day."

Gentle smoke curls from the bronze nostrils. The dragon is appeased. Absent-mindedly, he sweeps past Watten Estate, leaving cold grey smoke scudding like baby fog behind him. "Graves, hmm? He wrote some interesting poetry, but I preferred Frost."

A creature of refinement and culture, though hard as nails. I smile. Hard as frost, perhaps. Idly, my thoughts uncurl, stand up, and wander. They too have miles to go before they sleep, and I, I have promises to keep.

Yesterday, as always, I was in the Army. Today, as always, I am a sorcerer, a power of music and of verse. It is hard, and it gets worse. The Army, by the nature of the creature, is cautious about creativity. Everything must be tested, evaluated, weighed and metered before tentative acceptance, careful adoption, before the gods who rule in Tanglin (now, no more even there!) smile and give their blessings. Thirty months, it has been, my life like a fish in a closed pond.

Now? 'They shall seek me, but they shall not find me. They shall call for me, but I shall not answer them.' For (almost) a thousand nights and one night, we dream of the Army, we dream of the jolly green giant, the titanic defender, the career commanding respect. Some others dream of Spartans at a pass. The Army watered us, and in the darkest night, like mandrakes, we grew. Another cycle thus unfolds.

This night was a dark night not too long ago. In it, Al was saying, "How many more days do you have?" and I was replying, as if by conditioned reflex, "Four hundred and thirteen." I had been a defender of men for five hundred days. Although we had counted our days with such care, our dreams were still intact, the dreams of a sorcerer and his friend, the dragon.

Dreaming is a human thing. Along with it comes Myth, the tenuous condensation of Dream, like a cloud of hypnotic vapours. The first among the myths is Creation. The libraries of Man are filled with remnants of failed and partially-succeeding creation myths: Ginnungagap and the Ice-Cow, Ouranos and Gaia, the Five Universes, the World as Illusion, the First Principle, Ea, Nun, Varuna, and all their successors.

The Road was never this long! The night is endless, with lamps lighting our way a short while before and after, but never all the way to the end or back to the beginning. Indeed, some lights have been disconnected, and most travellers don't even miss them when they're gone. If each light were a deity, a pantheon, an idea, or a philosophy, it's almost as if many of them have been lost through their own inadequacy, and no-one wants them back because no-one needs them. How sad! How... necessary.

The bronze dragon mutters. Al says, "There's been an accident ahead. We'll have to turn around and enter the Court from the other side. I hope you know the way."

This is simple. I nod, assenting - wizards are used to the other side, the hidden ways. Al brakes, breaks the golden river, creates a tributary. White in the golden light, we turn towards the distance and are gone, pale in the many shadows under the wide trees.

The Dream takes worldly responsibility away from the Dreamer. A true Dreamer has only the responsibilities given by the Dream. The Dream is all-inspiring, all-devouring, all-powerful, like an emanation of the Most High, although not all are such. It inhabits, indwells the Dreamer utterly, and the Dreamer becomes priest, warlock, champion of his Dream, the Dream, the only Dreamt. There are many types of dream, but for each of us, normally only one Dream. Each Dream is light to its Dreamer, but most of us are trapped in the lighting.

Al laughs to himself, the dragon like a kingfisher flashing over a green lake. I look questioningly at him. He sees this, and replies to the unspoken, "You know, you were once so spellbound by that girl that everyone knew it. One night, I was speaking with Sean, and he said you spent an entire Applied Maths lecture drawing hearts with her name in each of them. Were you really so much in love with Pat?"

The Dream gets most of us at one time or another; in my case, while idling my way through Numeromancy 102 classes. The magician's only foe is the Dream of Woman, his only failing the Dream of Power; yet, his only goal should be the True Dream, and that is, while hard for all men, harder for him.

"I suppose I was. She is such a nice person to be with, even now. There were others, you know, who were just as enamoured."
The bronze dragon risks an equine snicker, to which the sorcerer can only raise a mildly embarrassed eyebrow. The night falls away, and three years ago, it falls into day, a lazy Wednesday, in the leaf-light dappled heaven-haven of the College of Wyverns.


III:

The college is a grey lichen-white, resembles a rectangular eggshell, made into a dwelling from wood and glass and stone and people. There are many people. All of them have been hatched, it seems, from the same egg, for their plumage is mostly identical. There is also a breeze.

Bronze-green and ash-brown, undernourished tenacious trees stand apart from the building. A girl, one among many others, walks from the foyer. My friend Burn says, "That's a classmate."

I turn to look. History, now, has poured its ocean over the facts, and some have dissolved. Of them all, very few, stubborn rocks in the lashing salt-spray, have retained their shape. She was Pat. There was something pleasant about her, which I liked. I don't know what it was. I don't know where she is. The pages have turned, the trapdoor has closed.

Even the college has changed now, or will have once been changed, or twice. We must avoid being perfectly tense. Things change, and the tense is seldom immutable.

Al and I are in his old vehicle. Burn and I are out on the bleachers, and Burn tells me about his class, three years ago. Al and I walk purposefully up the brick path, a deep purple night wheeling above us, hunter-starred. Burn and I walk leisurely across the asphalt, on a warm and dusty day; the sky is a pale half-electrified blue.

The lift arrives, we enter, and it rises. The trapdoor falls away. Three years ago, Burn says, "This is Pat." Three years ago: "Hello, I'm Alex." She is a strange mixture of embarrassed and pragmatic. I open the door, look into the house, and find no-one really at home, although signs of habitation are evident.

Three years later, I have been lifted up, and the bronze dragon with me. We stand on level ground, overlooking the city of a million souls, the amber stars, the grim greening of the night. I am a very young man, but feel a very old sorcerer. The bluish-grey smoke-scented wind twists into a zero and cancels out, while its careworn rain renews the shadow of the heart. The entrance is inviting, a simple metal grille outside an unornamented wood door. The plain figures of the apartment number remind me of her. I grasp Al's shoulder, hear a dragon's exhalation of surprise.

As we leave, nothing has seemingly changed, but I am different. By rejecting one thing forever, I have become more than I was before, but less than a magician. I will become a wanderer. Al is silent all the way to the waiting car.

In my several years of exploration, I made many friends. Literally, you understand; I made them from words and craft and poetry - their sinews were prose and their flesh was story. None of them had 'real' names - after all, these days, which of all the people have real names anymore ?

Well, there are a few. Soldiers whose names are 'known only to God', they rest as reminders of war, as our guilt-price. These are the Unknown Soldiers of a score of nations, the only ones with true names; and those, hidden by gunshots and smoke, poison gas and blood-smears.

My unknown soldiers were the crystals of my saturated imagination. As the heat of my age diminished, they were forced out, through the filtering paper of my writing, through the careful tubing of my pens. They had names (oh, all so false, and yet so true to me) like Tom Aquine and Maradaine Chase. They lived the lives I could not lead, the lives I dreamt.

Al asks, "Where to, now?"

He turns a restless eye on me, sees I am on the edge of nothing once again, asks carefully, "And what are you thinking about, then? You still thinking about Pat?"

"No, not Pat; she's out tonight, I've only just remembered. I was thinking of those who 'saved the sum of things for pay'. Do you remember all those characters we wrote about in the bad old days? I think they're all dead now; wouldn't write about them these days at all, now that so much time has passed. Except to make a bit of money, perhaps."

The bronze dragon chuckles, like the sucking of a summer river past winding banks. "You, at least have an art you can prostitute. I shall be content with photography, taking private photographs of the last hidden places of the world."

And that's the way of memories. We cultivate them until the fateful day in which they take on lives of their own and colour the processes of our reason (writers who can only write about one set of characters, actors who will always be known for only one role...). Then, we have no more need of them and must destroy them utterly.

Somewhere in time, we move out into the roaring river of light which is the Road at night. The track of each hurtling headlight-bearer burns an image on the retina of each eye. 'I knew a girl, and she went away / And the rain came down the face of my day.' Memories inhabit us, inhibit us. They are lessons we have learnt, whether for good or for ill. They burn their tracks into the screens of our minds. To learn some things properly, we must forget everything else, which looks like a waste.

Down in the dark brightness of this autumnal day, Al's heading home. I go with him, for the security of his home is a minor, but very marvellous thing. It's a very short trip from the Court to the Garden. The time-and-space bending properties of an old flame which still carries much weight must still be in effect, for the journey is short, and the warm house far nearer than it really is.

Why dragons? Why should I, failed magician, keep the dream of a lost race forever? It's like this: once upon a time, there was a dragon coiled on the hill near Al's house. It was another time, a summer day, and the predominant scents were dry grass and haze. I walked up the hill, wondering, and came upon him. The poor old thing, he was ancient but powerless, huge but decrepit, the sorry ruin of a mighty hunter.

I spoke to it; it winked sightless eyes at me and said, "Soon, the Village will be all commerce, and no one will dream the dragon-dream anymore. I will be less and less, your people more and more. One day, a little boy will weep for loss, and not know why, because there will be no more dragons, and no memory of them."

It went back to sleep - perhaps, forever. The sun set behind its apartment-crowned ears, and its placid breath was dilute in the fires of the burning leaves. There I stood, and there promised: always, dragons. No little boys crying. No worlds lost.
I seal the portal, but it will not hold for me, no longer magician. My hands find edges, but are blind, will not grasp the whole, too late. Somewhere, we have come home, to love and family comforts. Here, the trapdoor opens on infinity.


IV:

We sit in the patio, with carefully-distilled coffee and the hospitality of shortest notice. Out there, the wind giggles, pirouetting through palm and vast canopy. Inside, Al and I sit, muse, caffeinate and reminisce. We talk rubbish. We, together, dream. And the product is the old world, lost forever except by the seldom and infrequent windowing of this world through to that.

High school days, another summer, the season of Clavell's Shogun. Al sees, retrospectively, says, "Remember Sean's act, his famous mock suicide in courtly Japanese tradition? A broom for a sword, and fake poetry!"

How could we forget? Sean looked funny, there on his knees atop the teacher's table. A broken broomstick, ancient chairs in formidable array, and apart from them but in the same time, an old piano, a dusty laboratory full of apprentice glassblowers, a broken window. They stick in the corners of the mind, like cobwebs.

Let them stay. They do not hurt or hinder anyone. They were never harbingers of doom, but the slow sedimentation of the wind, the tide, the flow of years. They are a benign past, made desolate by ceaseless passages.

In that background, a desk slams shut, and a German submarine from the Second World War sneaks through the trapdoor. At its helm, five of us, captain and crew. We order the torpedoing of an enemy ship, we are sonar, hull, and tired submariners all at once. There are many other times within that time, and the spaces are infinite as well. There are no horizons, and our imaginations swim wide.

Then, we have grown, and the walls of the cup appear, leaving us like coffee-sodden ants within. Confinees of a new confine, most of us will drown somewhere here. In the present, as I reply to Al over coffee and cookies, many of that company have already gone, swept aside and down, into the abyss or the wasteland, and the roses have all died.

"What was it between Pat and you, back in college?" Al asks. He is genuinely curious, although not very much so.

There is a book of old roses, locked up in old rooms. In it, you may find almost every variety of beauty, any hue, any form, any texture. All around, the smell of antique wood, books, leather; everywhere, the rich and heavy aura of age upon age piled deep, like a carpet. I come here once in a while to visit old roses, to live apart from stainless steel and white cement.

Looking back, it is hard to decide whether I ever really loved them; harder still to know if ever they loved me. Of all things, one thing is sure: when a rose blooms in the watching hand, the heart might burst with joy.

In the cool darkness of the memory's mausoleum, my heart grows large, my body too small for its happiness. Here in the dusk, scribbled in the dust, are some haiku. One reads: 'One slim girl smiles here / Bright eyes burn and walk away / I am happy now'.

These lines are the potent image made into words, life and beauty molten in the forge, shaped in the cylinder of the heart. Even on the greyest of days, the cadences are not robbed of their power; each wise bright thought - though made less wise, less bright by mortal pen and vision - is still a fragment of the song.

I have learnt, I tell Al, that one love can foster many other friendships. The dragon nods, waits for me to continue.

"Love is the excelling way, the only one through the wilderness of the human heart," I say aloud. The coffee's aroma is still in the back of my nose.

Al looks at me with half-amusement. "You should know."

Once again, conversation fades into a buzz as the lower air unfolds around me. I feel tomorrow in my hand, an unknown weapon. It's time to get up. Ahead of me, the half-minute which is the wall of sleep looms. Struggling, I climb over it, land on the floor. I am awake. No. I am awake! No! I place feet carefully on their way to the bathroom. Noooooo... oh, very well then, have it your way. I am awake.

Thinking these thoughts in one year, in love with the last (and best) of all my roses, is hard. Three years ago, another year, and in love elsewise with an older rose, I hurt in my innermost parts. The only thing which firms the fastnesses of my life is the awareness I feel of God. In my mind, ideas of God unfurl, flutter like defiant banners. Bright love, word of creation made flesh, whose Spirit roars like a mighty wind among the towers of my thought - may this day be Yours, I say, brushing my teeth, washing my face.

In the corner of the mind's eye, December will be coming soon. We can expect showers in several areas in the mornings and in the late afternoons (are they always late?), and perhaps at night... and back in time, Al says, "Go on; what exactly did Pat say to you?"

Long ago, in the first quarter of 1984, we spoke for the third time. Her voice was soft. Her eyes were big, intelligent, careful and shy. She was gently dark, slim, and walked without care.

There was something I had to tell her. My heart beat in tympanic reverberation. It was grey and cool and quiet, for the rains had come and gone. I said all I had to say to her, quietly, distantly. My voice returned to me like the singing of a lone whale in the ocean. Of what had happened that day, I told no one.

Somewhere, in the deeps, my botanical brother whispers, "Old roses are the best." I agree. Before Pat, there were others; after her, others again. One thing differences them, makes their stories different, though: after Pat, my poetry would not be the same again.

The bronze dragon snorts, crunches chocolate chips. He chews, swallows, drinks, asks, "And that was how it all began? I would've thought something more dramatic might have happened, seeing your subsequent behaviour. I'm sure you're not telling me everything, O necromantic one!"

I'm sure I have most definitely not told him everything. I am also entirely sure of not being a necromancer at all. I continue. I tell him of the days which came after. He makes few interruptions, and I come eventually to December, and the painful wisdom of the dying year.

The coffee has gone, and the story ends, its last notes trailing away into despair, and a heart as heavy as the sea. Softly, the dragon's voice whispers, "We thought it was a pity too, you know. Nevertheless, it's better for you this way. Your life is different from hers. You are too... unalike. Now that all that is over, you're friends again, and what could be better?"

Indeed, not much could be better. I am happy, I am still in love, which is 'a great way to be', as Pik the brass dragon says.

Someday, I shall end my wanderings, join my princess, and be free... and old roses will bloom.

Ω

Labels: , ,

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Word of the Day: Brunei

At this point, I must be getting quite a lot of quizzical looks as the identity of this Word of the Day appears on various Google Reader pages and suchlike. Most people (or at least those with geographical affinity or instinct) already know of Brunei, the little Sultanate on the island of Kalimantan (or more commonly, Borneo) which is one of the world's richest states.

But that country is not what I'm talking about here...

The word brunei is the plural of Latin bruneus, which means 'a brown thing'. Brunei therefore means 'brown things'. It's related to the (also) Latin name Bruno, which means 'Brown'. If you knew a Mr Brown, you could refer to him as Magister Bruno in Latin!

...and this is still not quite the point of this post.

I was caught in reflection over the Hierophant's recent post in which he quoted, "Stat crux, dum volvitur orbis." It seemed to me that I remembered this line from my old friend named after the saint of the golden mouth. In the days when that friend of mine was considering the priesthood and a life of scholarly contemplation, this line came up and I never forgot it.

It has always seemed to me that Latin has a tendency to produce remarkable statements, because its structure is (by and large) a rational one, unlike that of English. If you are to be creative in a logical language (like computer languages), the effect has to be more than the sum of the code.

I've said this, because Stat crux, dum volvitur orbis can best be translated as "The cross stays, while the world turns." It carries with it the connotation of stability against chaos, reliability against caprice, validity against variability, a firm anchor against the whims of the sea. It doesn't imply stasis, but rather a steady perspective from which to stand and respond to change.

But what has this got to do with the word brunei?

The quote is actually the motto of the Order of Carthusians. This is a monastic order of hermits, who think and read and publish their writings while maintaining minimal contact with the world. Their monasteries are set up so that monks don't have to see much of each other, with individual cells and gardens. The Order was founded by St Bruno, and it is not stretching the use of Latin to say that these monks can be referred to collectively as the Brunei.

This post is dedicated to my friends and colleagues in the world out there, buffeted by the dictates of society, government, culture, academic life and... well, dictators, I suppose. Remember that whatever your beliefs and whatever your faith, a true faith is always more stable than the systems of the world (apologies to Sir Isaac for that dig, haha) or of the secular masters of this world.

=====

Note:

Yes, I have many TOK students who read these posts and will ask, "Haha, what do you mean by 'true'?" Well, I like the anagrammatic quality of this question-and-response:

Q. Quid est veritas?
A. Est vir qui adest.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Word of the Day: Brythain

For some strange reason, people keep asking me what this word means. I shall attempt not to digress too much as I dwell on its convoluted history.

The word brythain is actually cognate with the Welsh prydain, from Celtic pritani — 'painted people'. This came from the habit of the original inhabitants of the British Isles of painting themselves with various plant dyes (especially blue woad). If this etymology is true, it's probably related in parallel to the Roman term Pict for the northern 'barbarians' who painted themselves likewise. Pict, of course, is related to 'picture' — a painted thing.

Some etymologists propose that the Romans used the term Britannia as somehow related to the mythical founder of the island realm, Brutus of Troy. I think that's nonsense. It's a sort of post facto brutalisation.

The problem with the British Isles is that they are the most hospitable lands in the northwest of Europe. Britain itself, on which most of Scotland, Wales and England can be found, is the ninth largest island in the world and currently hosts about 60 million people. Over the centuries, they've been invaded by just about every tribe that migrated north and west, ran out of mainland space, and decided to cross the North Sea or the English Channel. This makes etymology hazardous and has spectacularly enriched the English language, which now seems to have about five different words (at least) for everything.

Britain itself is said to mean 'the Isle of the Blessed', and brythain therefore must mean 'man of the Blessed Isle'. In 1884, Professor Sir John Rhys introduced the word 'Brythonic' as a specific term of reference for matters related to the ancient cultures (pre-Saxon, pre-Norman, non-Roman) that inhabited the island of Britain.

At this point, it's good to get the geography sorted out. 'Britain' is the island which has Scotland (capital: Edinburgh) in the north and Cornwall at the southwestern tip, England (capital: London) in the southeast, and a lump in the west called Wales (capital: Cardiff). Great Britain is the term used to differentiate it from Brittany, the former British holdings in what is now France which were called 'Lesser Britain'. 'The British Isles' refers to all the thousands of islands in the region, including (well, that's a touchy issue for some) Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Shetlands, the Scillies, the Channel Islands, and the Orkneys.

The 'United Kingdom' is actually the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In the old days, it would have been the United Kingdom of Great Britain (under the Act of Union, 1707, in which the kingdoms of Scotland and England became politically a single unit). In 1801, Ireland was taken over by the UK, a most unhappy turn of events which was undone some time later.

It is this curious history which allows the British Isles to field more football teams than some confederations (it seems): Republic of Ireland (capital: Dublin), Northern Ireland (capital: Belfast), Wales, Scotland, and England each have their own teams.

Oh yes, one more thing about England. 'England' literally means 'land of the Angles', and for some time, it was more or less the area called 'Anglia'. Somehow, Alfred the Great managed to manipulate everyone into giving him more space, and England became larger than that. If not for old Alfred, the Pritani would probably be fielding nine soccer teams or more. Haha.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Word of the Day: Cæsura

I have come not to bury Cæsar; indeed, I have not come to blog about him at all. But it is inevitable that those who see the word cæsura are likely to think of the word cæsar (or caesar).

A cæsura or caesura is a lapse; a discontinuity or interruption in the natural fabric of things. For example, if you had a bunch of good rulers, and then a backstabbing liar with megalomania and some paranoid delusions, followed by another bunch of good rulers, then you'd have to call that unusual fellow a cæsura in the tapestry.

The word is equivalent what we'd now call 'a glitch', perhaps. In fact, it comes from the Latin caedere: to end, to cut down or cut off, to break down the continuity of something.

But back to Caesar, who must still be on your mind as a lapse of sorts.

I remember once using the time-honoured phrase, "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's." That, of course, is taken from the 22nd chapter of St Matthew's gospel, and compares secular authority to the Divine.

A modern would-be Stalin I know took grave offence at this. He thought that when I said it, I meant him. I laughed when I said, "No sir, you are not Caesar."

Five years later, he tried to prove me wrong. He set up crude imitations of the abomination of desolation in the courts of the righteous, the emblems of Zeus — one black, one white — according to the ancient rites.

As any student of the classics should know, the eagle is the symbol of a rapacious Zeus, the divine abuser of authority who struck at Ganymede. Neither of the eagles in the courts of the Citadel is a soaring eagle; rather, one stoops to strike and the other sits in self-satisfaction, its rump too heavy to fly.

The time in which these abominations was set up is indeed a caesura in the history of the faithful. May it end soon, and may the symbols of a malicious power be removed as soon as possible.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Word of the Day: Wake

Sometimes, contrary to popular belief, I indulge in the etymology not of very odd words, or invented words, but of simple words whose roots have been lost. Today's word is one such. What is it to 'wake' something, or to attend a 'wake', or to be a 'wake', or to leave a 'wake'?

The original root of the word seems to be the Sanskrit vaja, which has the sense later transmitted to the Latin vigor—that is, the quality of being vigorous, lively, driven. To wake somebody is to make him come alive, to invigorate or to drive him onwards (hence a 'wake-up call' is a peremptory summons to 'look alive').

At the same time, the essence of the word's meaning mutated with time, from 'lively', to 'alert', to 'watchful'. And so, we got 'vigil' and 'vigilant', in which the protagonist had to be awake and alive to be watching out. To nobody's surprise, it was the Irish who converted the sense of 'wake'='on watch' to 'an occasion of keeping watch over dead bodies to make sure they don't come back to life.' Nowadays, of course, we use it in the sense of watching over the dead to remember them when they were alive.

On the other hand, the great Anglo-Danish hero, Hereward, was also called 'the Wake'. In that sense, he was a watcher, a watchful one, a watchman over the evils of this world. I have some sort of historical kinship with him; the man's base was on the Isle of Ely, whose name is on my birth certificate.

The last sense of wake is the trail left by something moving through a fluid. In this sense, the word comes from the same root as Latin vacuum, 'a void'. The Old Norse vaka means 'a hole in the ice', and it was probably from this that the word entered the English language to mean the hollow space left astern as a seagoing vessel goes forward. When we say that we are 'left behind in the wake' or are 'trailing in the wake' of someone, we imply that this person moves so quickly and massively that people behind are sucked into the vacuum of movement.

I'd just like to end by noting the fact that 'vacuum' has three syllables. It is pronounced 'vac-u-um' and not 'vac-ium' as I've heard before. The latter irritates me, unreasonably I suppose, but a lot nevertheless.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Good Morning, Yesterday

It's the second day of the new year. At this rate, it will go mercilessly fast (or mercifully, for some of us). This year is going to be a very reflective year for me, and hopefully one in which I will recklessly spend the quickly diminishing currency of youth - investing it in the establishment of age.

It's odd how my thoughts oscillate between the scriptural and the secular; yet, it is quite clear to me that the power of the Word is meant to resonate in the World, for the World has its being and its temporal existence predicated on the Word. And so, what comes to mind most readily now is an odd juxtaposition of Psalm 90, a "prayer of Moses, the man of God", and Paul Anka's The Times of Your Life. Here they are, side by side, twin reminders that pushing forty is the point at which the swimmer makes the turn for home.

=====
The Times of Your Life, by Paul Anka and Moses

Good morning yesterday

Lord, You have been our refuge in all generations.
You wake up, and time has slipped away
Before the mountains were brought forth,
Or ever You had formed the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.
And suddenly it's hard to find

You turn man to destruction,
And say, “Return, O children of men.”
The memories that you left behind
For a thousand years in Your sight
Remember, do you remember?
Are like yesterday when it is past
And like a watch in the night.
The laughter and the tears

You carry them away like a flood;
They are like a sleep.
The shadows of misty yesteryears
In the morning they are like grass which grows up:
In the morning it flourishes and grows up;
The good times and the bad you've seen
In the evening it is cut down and withers.
And all the others in between

For we have been consumed by Your anger,
And by Your wrath we are terrified.
Remember, do you remember the times of your life?
(Do you remember?)

You have set our iniquities before You,
Our secret sins in the light of Your countenance.
Reach out for the joy and the sorrow
For all our days have passed away in Your wrath;
We finish our years like a sigh.
Put them away in your mind

The days of our lives are seventy years;
And if by reason of strength they are eighty years,
The mem'ries are time that you borrow
Yet their boast is only labor and sorrow;
For it is soon cut off, and we fly away.
To spend when you get to tomorrow
Who knows the power of Your anger?
For as the fear of You, so is Your wrath.
Here comes the setting sun (comes the setting sun)
So teach us to number our days,
That we may gain a heart of wisdom.
The seasons are passing one by one

Return, O LORD! How long?
So gather moments while you may,
And have compassion on Your servants.
Collect the dreams you dream today
Oh, satisfy us early with Your mercy,
That we may rejoice and be glad all our days!
Remember, will you remember the times of your life?
Make us glad according to the days in which You have afflicted us,
The years in which we have seen evil.
Of your life, of your life
Let Your work appear to Your servants
Do you remember, baby?
And Your glory to their children.
Do you remember the times of your life?
And let the beauty of the LORD our God be upon us,
Do you remember, baby?
And establish the work of our hands for us;
Do you remember the times of your life?
Yes, establish the work of our hands.

=====

And so, Anka the Lebanese Canadian and Moses the Israelite Egyptian meet across the millennia to speak of time. It's remarkable how little concerns have changed across that span. The bridge of years never fails to evoke a sense of wonder - and it humbles us all.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, July 13, 2007

The Alexandrian Key

It is said that the Great Library at Alexandria...
  • was the largest collection of learning of its time or any time before it

  • was one of many libraries all established in cities called Alexandria

  • was indexed by complex cryptography because it was so large

  • was razed by a truly literate conqueror

  • was a threat to world peace

  • was a necessary evil

  • was

Egypt is a mysterious land. God works in mysterious ways.

Celebrant: Open the gates of your heart. This is the morning. The blood of the sun is within us and the light of the dawn covers the land with its heat.

Congregation: This is the eye of the day.

Celebrant: Open the gates of your breast. This is the morning. The breath of the sun is upon us and the light of the dawn brings life.

Congregation: Behold the eye of the day.

Celebrant: Open the gates of your mouth. This is the morning. The word of the sun is upon us and the light of the dawn calls us to praise the Ancient of Days.

Congregation: Praise the Ancient of Days!

All: For the sun has He set as a light from dawn to dusk and as an arbiter of season and sign, of promise and of hope.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 02, 2010

Bestiary

A medieval bestiary is a wonderful thing to behold. From the fertile imagination of homo mediaevalis, desperately using bird flight-pattern divination to seek a better age than the one he found himself in (auspicium melioris aevi, as they say), came glorious pictures of creatures that never existed or overly creative pictures of real creatures.

One of my readers requested that I provide a little guide to differentiating between Gryphons, Wyverns and Torchbearers. Well, let's assume that the rest of my readers have no ideas or preconceptions about Atlantean education. Then the task is simple, and I shall do it the easy way first.

The gryphon and the wyvern are etymologically related according to some accounts. This is because as in many word-pairs (such as 'guard' and 'ward', 'guardian' and 'warden', 'Guillaume' and 'William', 'guile' and 'wile') it is obvious that the Norman 'gu' and the Saxon 'w' are somewhat interchangeable. However, a closer inspection of the two shows significant differences.

It is more likely that 'gryphon' comes from Greek grypos, or 'hook-nosed', 'beaky'. It was a term used for the birdlike guardian spirits of the East, which in various accounts ranged from tiny brazen birds with very sharp beaks and teeth(!) to huge winged sphinx-like monsters like those depicted in Assyrian statuary. Eventually, it was linked to creatures which were eagle from chest up and lion from torso down, with the nasty habit of eating horses. The Atlantean gryphon however seems to have lost its way; it is a two-headed eagle (Aquila imperialis Rafflesii) rather than a true gryphon. That being so, it is often seen as a greedy, grasping, ambitious carrion-eater which looks both ways so that it might eat everything; not for nothing did the imperial monarchies of Austria and Russia adopt a two-headed eagle for their dubious heraldry.

The wyvern, however, has a less auspicious origin. It's quite likely that 'wyvern' comes from various Western European languages (e.g. OFr guivre which, as hinted at above, became Saxon wivre, plural wivren) which distorted the original Latin vipera, which is a particularly nasty snake. However, that perspective is slightly short-sighted. The Latin vipera comes from viviparere, a word that survives almost unchanged as English 'viviparous' — 'bringing forth live young' (as opposed to hatching them from eggs as an eagle would, I suppose). The wyvern's offspring are therefore a lot more lively than the eagle's.

But what really is a a wyvern? Well, most heralds agree that a wyvern refers to a beast that has two clawed feet and a dragon's body and wings. The details may vary; a fair number of these wyverns have the barbed tail that indicates serpentine (and poisonous) character. It is quite clear that the creature depicted here, for example, is indeed a wyvern by definition and cannot be a gryphon, since the nether parts are draconian and not leonine.

Where do torchbearers come into this mess? Well, it would seem that in modern Atlantis, there are those who use a logo that depicts a Promethean flame; that is, it is a flame that indicates knowledge — in the case of this logo, by associating the flame with what looks like a book.

The Promethean myth is intimately associated with flying beasts of all mythological kinds, as well as the myths of knowledge. More than five years ago, I posted this, if you wish to know more.

Within the modern Atlantean context, however, it might be of interest for me to quote a fable that a wise man, once a Power of the Torchbearers, told to a mixed group of educators one fine day in the Educators' Guild:

Once upon a time, there were three young men standing on the Hill of Tin. One was a Wyvern, one was a Gryphon, and one was a Torchbearer.

They were told by the Thunderer to find a way from the top of the Hill to the bottom without using wings or fire, thus blazing (haha) a trail for others to follow. It was interesting to see what transpired once the echoes of the thunder had died away.

The Gryphon (or at least, the two-headed eagle masquerading as one) looked left and right, forward and back, up and down, East and West. It then quartered the terrain visually, calculated the optimal path, and started down. Since he had already calculated the path, all he needed to do was proceed relentlessly to the end.

The Wyvern, a well-rounded but slightly odd character like all of his ilk, tucked his wings and tail around him, ignored the obstacles, and rolled downhill, reaching the bottom first. He had yielded completely to Newton's Laws except when he got stuck, at which point he thrashed around randomly with his wings and tail until he got unstuck.

The Thunderer rewarded him with the right to do whatever he wanted, but with no further support. The Gryphon, who arrived (as usual) slightly later than that, was promised full support as long as he stuck to the Thunderer's rules. The Torchbearer also got to do what he wanted, for he never reached the bottom of the Hill and the Thunderer gave up on him.

At this point, we all expressed curiosity as to why the Torchbearer never got to the bottom. The wise man told us, "Torchbearers are very bright, but they often cannot see further than their own flames. Worse, since they are very square, they can't roll down the hill at all."

We had a good laugh. Shortly thereafter, the wise man transferred and is now a Power at the Artisans' School that has just got a new campus downtown.

I'll just end with an interesting little factoid. If you take a good look at the Atlantean priesthoods, you'll find that the majority of the priests are either Gryphons or Torchbearers. However, the number that get promoted to archpriests is disproportionately biased in favour of Wyverns. This is especially true in the priesthoods that control money and education, since these were once the domains of the Gnome, that ancient and talented Wyvern who was the Thunderer's alter ego.

Labels: ,

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Eventide

This post is about loss and the passage of time.

Some months ago, I remembered the world known as Moonsweep. From the same universe comes the world named Eventide. Again, like Moonsweep, the name is somewhat ambiguous - is it the time of evening, is it the regularity of the tide, is it something else?

And like Moonsweep, the name is somewhat melancholic. It has always brought to mind one of my favourite hymns, the first line of which reads, "Abide with me, fast falls the eventide..." As the darkness deepens, what indeed abides? "All flesh is as grass, and the glory of man is as the flower of grass; the grass fades and the flower falls away..." says the good book.

Which brings us to the idea of fading. All the strength and glory and pageant of mankind fades away. The Romans used the word vanus to connote the emptiness of a vessel that once was filled. "It has vanished," one can imagine a mournful Roman child saying, as she looks into the honeypot to find it bare. The translators of the Septuagint were similarly cognizant when they used the phrase vanity of vanities in the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes - an emptiness, a vainglory, where once we might have expected wisdom and success and the marks of a better age.

It is all about evanescence - the quality of something which fades as you look at it, becomes less tangible until it is gone without you quite seeing how it went. This is like the life of a mayfly, one of those curious insects which is born, lives, and dies within a day. Senescence and obsolescence within hours of adolescence. Does it make sense? Is it science? They are all one - in one day. So a human might seem to an elf, in a Tolkienesque world.

This is why there is a genus of butterflies named Vanessa. Butterflies are the most evanescent of glories in the field - they are of the order Lepidoptera, "charming wings". But the Painted Ladies of genus Vanessa are larger than life, vibrant, cosmopolitan. Across the world, they will tip their eyespotted wings at you, as if to say, "I see everything, and I am cheerful!"

It somewhat belies the fact that when Jonathan Swift invented the name to describe a friend of his, he almost certainly knew that it meant 'the essence of that which fades.' Perhaps, that is what the butterfly does. As the evening, the eventide, falls around it, it is the last light of the darkening field. If and when the sun rises, it is there to catch the light of the morning on its wings - and it tells us that although the grass fades and the flower falls away, there are things that abide forever. And there are things that are signs of this abiding hope.

Even then.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Word of the Day: Teratogenesis

This is one of those words you hardly ever see, and when you come across them you realise you wouldn't want to use them even if you had occasion to do so. The most common place to find this word is in the biological or chemical sciences.

'Teratogenesis' really means 'giving birth to monsters'. It comes from Greek teras which means 'something monstrous' or 'a marvel' (of the perverse sort), and 'genesis' which is now an English word adopted from the Greek for 'beginning'.

The thing is that for the last two decades or so, I've been studying education. And I never cease to marvel at the monstrosities that arise from the best of ideals. What better ideal is there but to educate the young in order to help them attain a better quality of life? (Yes, rhetorical question; yes, there are better ideals, but not many.)

But at the same time, the pathways to educating the young have spawned many monsters. One of the keys can be found in the utilitarian and pragmatic philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. In 1785, in an age of revolutions, he came up with the idea of the panoptikon, a prison in which the inmates could be observed with great efficiency. That word comes from the Greek for 'all-seeing'.

Modern schools are often designed, conceptually or physically, like Bentham's Panopticon (that's how it was transliterated into English). They tend to be surveillance-oriented, whether in terms of actual visual interdiction or in terms of what they call 'monitoring'. Every student is 'monitored' in many different ways, watched and tracked and so on.

It's important to note two points that come out of this narrative.

The first is that 'monitor' comes from the same root as 'admonish' — i.e., a monitor is 'one who warns'. This meaning became 'one who warns with intent to control behaviour', then 'one who warns with intent to check (as in restrain or block) behaviour', then 'a thing that warns you of certain behaviours', then 'a thing that watches other things'. When you monitor someone else, you are a thing, and so is the other person.

The second is that the adjective 'all-seeing' is normally applied to monsters. Argus Panoptes, the Greek titan with many eyes, was a monster; so too was Sauron, epic villain of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and known as the 'All-Seeing Eye'.

By creating a system that fosters this concept of subjecting students to close monitoring, we have brought new life to old monsters. Surely it is time to stop treating schools as prisons or lunatic asylums. And yes, I am sure many educators and principals (the two are not always the same thing) will object to what I've said. To them, I can only say, "You can object to the truth, but the truth is objective to you."

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Authority & Independence

Today is US Independence Day. So it is rather odd to be talking about authority. That's a word with a ring of finality to it, and its often associated with the death of independence. But there really ought to be no difference between 'authority' and 'authorship'. They both convey the sense of bearing the stamp of the author, the evidence of auctorial rights. In a strange way, establishing authorship establishes auctorial independence to some extent.

There are two main authority-related issues in an auctorial context.

Firstly, there are people who look at others' intellectual property and misappropriate it. This effectively changes the author of a work, an idea, a process – anything that has already been committed to a physical medium by somebody else. It happens whenever people fail to acknowledge significant contribution, regardless of what legal authority says. This is why creative people occasionally are driven to assert a moral authority, realising that legal authority and casuistry will not necessarily protect them. Moral authority does not protect one's auctorial rights very well either, but moral victories have different standards and produce different elements of retribution.

Secondly, there are people who reserve the right to rewrite the rules of the milieu to suit themselves. Sometimes, this is fair; sometimes, this is merely dictatorship. Most times, it is somewhere in between. One ought to be careful when attempting to rewrite the rules of the game to one's advantage. Some players are better at gameplaying than others, regardless of rules changes. It is the 'metagaming' ability which sets these apart. A more reprehensible version exists in many major organisations – it normally takes the form of a written or unwritten clause which allows for rules changes without consultation or prior notification or warning.

These two issues are quite separate from the traditional issues of authority. Earlier issues of authority were mostly about physical and social control of the traditional elements: money, power, sex, influence and such. These are hoarded, traded, and encashed much like any other kind of token. But the modern world revolves around information, another kind of bargaining chip.

I find it reprehensible, but unfortunately all too justifiable, for a morally-oriented organisation of any kind to slam the gates down on information and engage in the cyber-equivalent of skullduggery and espionage in order to control the flow. If you want to be a pure power-broking institution of the mundane and secular kind, say so. If you're an eagle, don't call yourself a dove. Don't call yourself a charity, a mission school, a bible society, a church, whatever. Especially if you are a Christian institution.

For Christians, Romans 12 warns very firmly about not conforming to the patterns of the world. This is not to say that we shouldn't be law-abiding, peaceable, societally-appropriate in some contexts. Rather, it tells us to disdain the lure of the human-oriented chips: the hoarding of counters based on information, sex, power, money, control, physical force.

Isn't that rather idealistic? No, not at all. Earlier, I mentioned meta-gaming. If you are right about God and happen to be a Christian, then logically you have access to the Author and Finisher of your faith, the Architect of the Foundations, the Lord of Hosts, the Ruler of the Game. You are already a meta-gamer, and no matter how the world's patterns shift and flow, you will remain ahead of the game as long as you remember the true Author. And give Him the intellectual property kudos that belong to Him. Then you will be free indeed.

Happy Independence Day.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Word of the Day: Crepuscular

It's been a long time since we had a Word of the Day. Today's word is appropriate for our times; it is in fact a word describing a particular period of time.

'Crepuscular' means 'of, or pertaining to, that period between daylight and night'. The word has an interesting origin: Latin crepurus means 'uncertain', or 'of unknown purity' — 'crepuscular' therefore has a slightly negative connotation and could be taken to describe 'a time about which we are not quite certain, and which is tainted by something we are not sure about'.

Technically, a crepuscular animal is one most active between daylight and nightfall. This period of time is itself multifaceted: we hear it described as dusk, evening, twilight, and (most archaic, I think) 'gloaming'.

Perhaps our sense of crepuscular might be enhanced by looking at those four words.

'Dusk' means 'misty-ish' in northern languages; it connotes a lacking in light quality and thus probably refers to the time at which the sun only indirectly lights up the land – after sunset, perhaps.

'Evening' is surprisingly pretty exact. The original sense of 'eve' or 'evening' was 'the period just before something'; in this case, the period before 6 pm. Sometimes there is sun, sometimes not. It is a chronological thing in the original sense, and perhaps best described as halfway between midday and midnight.

'Twilight' is an interesting one. It's almost directly related to the German zwielicht, or 'two-lights'. That's because there is a morning twilight as well as an evening twilight; it corresponds to the balance-point (occurring twice a day) between full light and darkness. It can mean the time just before light overtakes darkness; its more sinister sense denotes the time just after darkness has overtaken light.

'Gloaming' means 'the glowing' and denotes the period during which light can still be seen; either the afterglow of evening twilight or the pre-glow before morning twilight.

Crepuscularity is therefore a complex thing; it is a thing of light and darkness, shadows and greys and half-tones. What I like about the word is its onomatopoeic quality: it is something that creeps elegantly toward you.

Labels: ,

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Word of the Day: Consanguinity

Well, it's been a long time since we had a Word of the Day; I think the last one was 'disgruntle', and that was months ago!

Today's word is an interesting one, again not because of its rarity but because of its unusual antecedents and eventual accepted meaning. 'Consanguinity' comes from Latin con- + sanguinis, meaning something like 'together (in/with)' + '(the) blood'. Modern science has driven the meaning inexorably towards the sense of genetic sharing of the same bloodline, and often confines it to the genetic relationship between first cousins. Traditionally, people who are of that relationship or closer should not be producing offspring together, hence the test of consanguinity in mediaeval times.

However, a closer reading of the Latin sanguinis does seem to allow for 'blood' to be interpreted in a more symbolic way, as in the idea of bloody-mindedness, of a passion for life, and a generally positive outlook. It is plausible to interpret the 14th-century formation consanguineus, used originally by the Church, in a different way (although not an orthodox one, I fear). You might say it could describe someone who does things 'with the blood'; that is to say, with passion and a positive attitude. In a negative sense, you could say it means 'with bloody-mindedness'. And in a modern 'Gothic' sense, you could say that two people who are 'consanguineous' are vampires with the same origin.

The way the modern world uses information (my theme in many of the last few posts) ensures that language develops shades of meaning much faster than it would otherwise do. This enhances the merry confusion that is English, literally a fusion of many other languages brought together in an intimate shindig.

=====

In nominally unrelated news, my closest female relative celebrates her birthday today... happy birthday, mother! *grin*

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Word of the Day: Performativity

This term was introduced to me by he who oversees my work in this mortal plane. He described it almost as if it were some loathsome, noxious potion best identified by the stench of 'accountability' and 'competition'. The word is derived from 13th-century Anglo-French performir, meaning 'accomplish' or 'fully provide'. However, from Latin it could mean something like 'for appearances' sake'.

The first point about 'performativity' is that it allows for simplistic and selective ranking. You create (or obtain) a rubric or a checklist or some other simple method of evaluation. This allows you to carry out ranked value judgements, assign numeric or quantitative value, and/or plot trend lines so that you can compare the performance of one institution with that of another.

The second point about 'performativity' is that it is all about performance. Nobody cares what is done, how it is done, or why it is done, as long as the rubrics, checklists, and methods of evaluation allow the institution to come up with values indicating success. These values, despite the selective and subjective nature of their origin, are touted as objective indicators of quality.

The third point about 'performativity' is that it allows for performers to act in such a way that they can be seen to be successful without actually thinking very hard. Think about the following example:

In Atlantis, elite students regularly win international awards for performance in English Literature. This is seen as a sign that Atlantean education is performing well in that domain. However, no mention is made of the fact that many Atlanteans schools don't offer the subject or offer it only to select individuals — it is considered difficult to teach and difficult to learn and thus not very good for a school's performance statistics. In some schools, it isn't even given that name, but styled as something else: 'Language Arts', perhaps.

The performers in this case are institutions who cultivate elite classes of students by streaming, and then, after weeding out the undesirables, proclaim the wonders of those who are 'left on the island' (so to speak). Similarly, you can have institutions who take in the top 10% of the population, eliminate 40% of those, and then use test-retest methods to ensure that the students have done enough work to do well.

Students who have not done so may be prevented from registering for examinations, thus ensuring that good results are always obtained. Thus, no matter how good or bad the quality of the teaching, administrative fiat can compensate for it — the authorities merely have to control who takes the exams better than who prepares the students for exams, and ensure that no matter how they are taught, they work hard on their own. Some of them, of course, find private tutors to enhance their performativity, so that they don't have to go to special study camps where they are taught to concentrate (supposedly).

Oh yes, to my Atlantean colleagues, have a very happy Teachers' Day! And may your performance statistics always appease the savage powers of your citadels of learning.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Word of the Day: Canaliculus

I'm sure that some of my readers will immediately have odd qualms about admitting this word to their individual vocabularies. It will probably sound 'wrong' to some of them. And indeed, on muttering it to myself repeatedly several hundred times in the local café, I have begun to think that this is true – that 'canaliculus' is indeed a word that sounds as if it is on the verge of being a porneme.

The word canaliculus is of course easily etymologised. Like any of the modern words ending in -cule, it has its roots in the diminutive end of Latin grammar. A canulus is a channel, and the English word 'canal' is somewhat related to it in this sense. A canaliculus in its most general sense is therefore a very tiny channel.

In anatomy, the word refers to the path tears take to a tear duct; in cytology, it refers to a folding in a membrane that creates a groove, thereby resulting in increased surface area (think about the folded-looking surface of a human brain). But I think the definition that resonates with me most acutely is this: a canaliculus is a microscopic channel that connects the lacunae in an ossification.

Before you give up in disgust, let me explain. 'Lacunae' are voids, little holes. In my educational universe (please, not the horrible 'eduverse'), a lacuna is a gap in knowledge or data; it is that wonderful thing which research seeks to obliterate by filling up. Of course, an 'ossification' is a structure that has hardened and is no longer flexible – also a part of that universe. Canaliculi are therefore wonderful things that allow you to move from space to space within a structure that no longer allows for flexibility.

And that is why 'canaliculus', for all its quasi-pornemic qualities, is my Word of the Day.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Leadership

I think the greatest conundrum facing the modern Christian lies in this one word. Too often, we are bombarded by alternative meanings of the word 'leadership' that have nothing to do with any Christian model - meanings from the world of commerce, business, trade and economics; meanings from the world of politics, governance, administration and management; meanings from sociology, anthropology, psychology and zoology.

Let's cut to the chase. What is a Christian leader? There are many words translated thusly in the New Testament - words which would come across most directly as 'hegemon' (ruler), 'overseer', 'governor' or 'archon' (primus inter pares). None of these are used of Jesus, the 'author and finisher of our faith'.

There is no doubt that there are many appointed by God or by men to fulfil these roles, but there is equal certainty that the Messiah promised in Isaiah sometimes produced different images in the minds of men - images which some of us still retain falsely. In a few verses like Isaiah 55:4, the Messiah is seen as a leader and commander of his people. But even this is eclipsed by the many more verses which show him as a willing sacrifice, a scapegoat for the sins of his people.

So what is leadership? Leadership is a lesser role than that of servant. To be a servant is to serve without leadership in any sense but that your example makes others want to serve as well. To be a servant in such a way as to minister to others, to give of your self, to suffer and to take on burdens beyond the bearing of others, to forgive wrongs, to defy despair - these are the great things of the servant that a leader will never be able to touch.

But the church has need of leaders too, the people appointed as the outriders and guardians of the flock, to do the mundane chores of administration, seecurity, governance, finance and such like. It is telling that the gifts of the spirit separate leadership (governance) from apostleship, preaching, teaching and even encouragement. It is only the world that demands a leader should have all these things as well. No; a leader is a sergeant-at-arms, the political boss whose job it is to ensure turnout on the final day of voting, the person who runs the commissary and the refectory. He is no prophet, no preacher, no teacher - and conversely, a person with such a greater gift must consider seriously if he should be a administrator at all, unless that is his gift.

Administrative skill isn't everything. In a world of hierarchies and worldly powers, of thrones and dominations, of rulers (does anyone remember how God treated the Israelites who wanted a king?) and those who would lord it over others, it might seem to be a great thing; indeed, in some countries, the Administrative Service is the senior instrumentality of state.

But this is not the most excellent way. And so I must regretfully say that the idea of 'servant leadership' is (or has been transformed by human venality into) a bad modern idea which builds its ragged nest upon the true kingship of the greatest servant of all.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, September 02, 2004

Retrospection & The Waste Land

[Don't click on the link yet, even if you're looking for the greatest poem of the millennium just past.]

I'm glad for the encouragement I receive from fellow ACSians, whether they're self-named cows or avenging angels. Of course, there's still some sort of divide - I believe I'm right when I say that students see me as the product of a different generation. And of course, they'd be right. But what is the nature of this divide, this memetic gap?

I think that as in all the eras of Man's history, the same things divide us. They're a combination of technological and social factors. In every age of Man, the qualitative generational divide is the same - all parents in general believe theirs was a golden age, and that their offspring hail from a less cultured one. Why is this so? It's because our nature as a species is to remember either extreme trauma or extreme pleasure - anything extreme - and to slowly lose the rest. So it is always 'the best of times... the worst of times' and Great Expectations. So let's forget about the qualitative divide, because we can't do anything about it except grow up, suddenly realise we're the older generation (or worse, the oldest) and seek forgiveness.

Let's look at the quantitative divide, though. Most of my readers know Moore's 'Law' very well. Essentially, it says that computer capacity doubles for every succeeding identical period of time. What does this mean in real, human terms?

I grew up learning BASIC and Pascal. I did programming in binary, hexadecimal, and assembly language. At the worst, I had to program 1-bit (we're talking about the register storage capacity here) machines by switching things on and off manually. In 1980, the Sinclair ZX80 had an onboard memory of 1K. It was huge. By 1983, my Apple II Europlus had as much as 128K if you closed one eye and opened one page. It did this at a speed of about 8 kHz, on a good day. In 1985, the last of the 8-inch diskettes were being phased out together with dedicated word-processing machines.

In 1988, I established an Internet identity. I was Wanderer, and there wasn't much anyone else could do about it as I prowled through unguarded university and government systems. In 1992, you still couldn't access many large databases, genomics was a faint and disturbing whisper, and I was on my third Mac. If you had a 20 Mb hard disk, you were pretty happy (I remember when a 1 Mb HD cost almost $10k). But I had my own webpage, which was cool. Machines were hitting the heavy kHz speeds, though far away from the GHz level.

I'm typing this on a 1.5GHz PowerBook G4. It has 768 Mb of SDRAM. This excludes the video memory, which wasn't the case 20 years ago (in those days, your program could collide with video RAM and do weird things; sometimes this was deliberate).

Qualitatively, a geek these days is as obsessive as a geek in those days. But what we obsessed about was different. I don't know if anybody still remembers the Beagle Brothers' 'what is the coolest program you can make in one line of code' competitions. A big, complicated CRPG might take up 256K of space on your HD and provide 6 weeks of entertainment. We had so little space that we obsessed about elegance and miniaturization of code. This is less common now; there is a lot more space.

In the early 1980s, we still used stencils for printing. If you made an error, you had to patch it up by plastering pink eradicator fluid over the mistake so that ink wouldn't get through. Word processing was in its infancy. You might as well have been making cuneiform inscriptions on clay tablets. This meant that we tried to be a whole lot more careful. Nowadays, it's a lot easier, so people don't care so much about errors, and it shows.

So what has all this 'you young people don't know about the bad old days' stuff got to do with the greatest English-language poem of the 20th century? Here's a quotation from it. Part 4 of 'The Waste Land', text:

IV. DEATH BY WATER

Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead,
Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep sea swell
And the profit and loss.
A current under sea
Picked his bones in whispers. As he rose and fell
He passed the stages of his age and youth
Entering the whirlpool.
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

Yes, every generation looks at the dying of its elders, often with pity, sometimes with confusion, or even with affective dissonance. But remember, O you who will someday be turning the wheel into the gathering storm, we were once handsome and as tall as you.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Big Words

There are some large words in our vocabulary: colossal, titanic, gigantic, tremendous, huge, enormous, vast, immense; the interesting thing, I realise, is that most people cannot differentiate between them. It would be an excellent test to see whether a candidate could create a sentence in which one word would work while another could not.

So what are the differences between these words?

Colossal: From Greek kolossos, first found in Herodotos and used to describe the large Egyptian statues found in temples and as statuary guardians. The Colossus of Rhodes was the 33-metre tall statue of Helios the sun-god which stood near the harbour from which Rhodes derived its income and which was its only defensive weakness. From the mid-18th century, colossal was used to denote something unimaginably vast (in terms of space and size) but not necessarily of human aspect, as had previously been the case.

Titanic: From Greek titan, 'one who strains mightily'; the male plural is titanes and the female plural titanides. They were the youngest (and thus most human-looking) of the children of Heaven (Ouranos) and Earth (Gaia). To call something titanic is to evoke the sense of godlike struggle and use of physical power and energy.

For those who want to know, their names were Ókeanos ('Ocean'), Téthys ('Divine Sea'), Hüperion ('Excellence'), Théia ('Divine Light'), Koios ('Intelligence'), Mnemosüné ('Memory'), Krios ('Horned One' - he seems to have been male lunar power), Phoibé ('Brightness'), Iapetus ('Spearcaster' or 'Piercing One'), Themis ('Natural Justice'), Kronos ('Time Passing'), and Rhea ('Fertile Ground').


Gigantic: From Greek gigas ('enormous one'), one of a member of the monstrous cousins of the gods, the Gigantes. The word carries with it the sense of abnormal size, deformed largeness and brute strength. Some of the Gigantes had multiple limbs and extraordinary senses; Argus was said to have a thousand eyes and the Hekatoncheires had a hundred hands and fifty heads each.

Tremendous: From Latin tremens; literally 'causing one to shake'. Originally had the sense of 'terrifying' or 'awesome'. Now, it just means 'very good, and I'm happy for you'.

Huge: From some distant Indo-European root (see, for example, Old French ahuge), meaning 'very large in scale or stature'. Describes physical size.

Enormous: From Latin e- + -normis; implies something that is beyond the ordinary and completely abnormal. The sense of 'outside nature' (perhaps outrageously so) can be seen in the related word 'enormity'.

Vast: From Latin vastus, 'wasteland'. The words 'vast' and 'waste' are originally the same. 'Vast' denotes an empty space, a void or other featureless expanse. 'Vast knowledge' would mean something like 'a lot of information, within which individual facts are of negligible importance', I suppose.

Immense: From Latin meaning 'not measurable' (cf. 'mensuration', 'commensurate'). The idea is that of something so big that it is beyond conventional measurement.

Some day when you have to describe something beyond normal experience, take a few moments. Think about the kind of excess you are experiencing. And pick the right word to describe it.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Systemic or Societal?

Last night I was having one of those interesting Facebook intercommentarial episodes — things that aren't quite conversations or discussions but approximate them through roughly alternating comments on a post. The Thunderer's get was protagonist, so I suppose in a sense I was antagonist, although not in the modern sense.

The underlying issue was whether a certain system was crazy or not. Personally, I always go for etymology before thinking about significance. The word 'crazy' means 'fragmented', and it is in this sense that things are 'cracked', 'flawed' or otherwise 'broken'. It implies a lack of consistency at the very least and a lack of coherence or integrity at more subtle levels. Clearly, a system can be crazy.

But the overall issue seemed to be whether crazy people had made a crazy system or whether a crazy system had made crazy people. And here I paused to think.

The real conflict was that, in the kinds of systems we were discussing, people were integral components. If the people were nuts, the system (no matter how designed) would behave sub-optimally. But this, in the long term, is true of any system — it slides into increasing entropy. The Thunderer's get averred (perhaps with some sarcasm) that it was easy to say this, since the Second Law said as much.

My point was that empirically, systems collapse not in the very long heat-death-of-the-universe sense but in the much shorter span of generations. If a generation is 30 years, evolving systems like the American experiment in constitutional democracy have only lasted less than 10 generations. The first of my ancestors to leave eastern Eurasia and move to south-eastern Eurasia did so around that time; he lived from 1751 to 1801. The local mercantile/political experiment of my forefathers is thus an experiment just as old and I have empirical knowledge of it.

In the much smaller system of my clan, we have diversified pretty broadly (although not as much as the American system, with vastly greater numbers of inputs and functions). But I am absolutely certain that none of us hews closely to the attitude of our patriarch. If he had drafted a constitution, it might have slowed the entropy and diversification; if we had spent more time planning (as if we'd been a corporate institution) we might have kept the focus narrower. But neither of these possibilities is easy to evaluate.

The Thunderer's get also pointed out that certain systems obviously produced better (more rational, more useful etc) results than others. This is certainly true. But it is also about as useful as the finding that all systems fail because it is also a truism. No two systems can be alike, or they would not be two systems; they'd be one. If they were not alike, their outputs would be different either in terms of process or product, and hence different in impact on their implementors, environments and users.

Of course, in a purely mathematical system, this might not be true; you can indeed produce the same result by different process, and if a machine does it, there is little or no impact on human users. But that particular qualification — human — is the nub of the issue.

In any system, the tendency to entropy is greatest in the most complex element. The higher the level of development, the greater the distance from the baseline and the harder it is to sustain. This can be empirically and experimentally verified. In most of the systems under discussion, humans are involved, and they are the most complex elements of these systems.

This then was the process by which I reached the following point of contention: I said that all systems tend towards the mediocre and the Thunderer's get disagreed, citing the fact that some systems were better than others. I think that both of us were true in a very trivial sense (see above) but that taken together, these two truths give a higher truth: no matter how hard you strive to make something better, it will one day, in the not-so-distant future, be made less good by humans.

The challenge therefore is to overdesign systems so that humans can't mess them up. And of course, the more you overdesign a system, the more potential for entropy you create and the more effort you spend. You are taking away resources from somewhere else to do that work. You are fighting the inevitable, perhaps in a very laudable way, but mediocrity lurks nearby, always at your shoulder. It is the dark twin.

It is right to resist mediocrity. But this can only be done by changing the system every now and then. The other challenge is to know when to expend that effort and suffer that pain.

In all, one should conclude that the main point of human striving, systemically speaking, is to expend effort in setting up systems that resist entropy to some continuing and useful end. Society, on the other hand, cannot be that end in itself. So what is?

Labels: , , ,