Sunday, September 9, 2007
Writers Shock
A mistypd word gave me sleepless nights when paper was gone and ribbon was low. The sleeplessness sped over the cliff of writers block and down a deep chasm of aimlessness. Wandering as I was, tired and parched for words I spied an enigma that looked fat with inspiration. The razor sharp teeth of my mind quickly broke it into comprehensible morsels. But only after it was once again whole and reunited within me, did I feel the answer quaking at the core of my being. As my vision clouded, my thoughts became clear and my writers shock delivered me to writers death.
The Bleaching
Someone tried to bleach my mind to whiten the stain of my being.
Someone attempted to sandpaper my heart, never realizing it was a metaphor for feeling.
Someone took an interest in my bone structure …
Someone tried to steal my soul, showing a distinct lack of cognitive ability.
Someone attempted to sandpaper my heart, never realizing it was a metaphor for feeling.
Someone took an interest in my bone structure …
Someone tried to steal my soul, showing a distinct lack of cognitive ability.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
I would like to say nothing about art and take up as much of your time as possible
In general, people like to categorize everything so that there are words to associate with concepts and objects. This specificity is a time saving tool. It keeps us from having to mime everything in daily life.
Sometimes specificity can become a burden, especially when the information regarding a certain thing obscures what it actually is. Søren Kierkegaard is often quoted as saying “Once you label me you negate me.” I’m not sure of the original context of this statement, nor am I sure that it did indeed come from him, nor am I willing to do the research that would be required to find out. Suffice it to say that a confident person would not be likely to indicate that their personal value was so fleeting as to be snuffed out by a casual encounter with another’s taxonomy. Therefore, I am assuming that Kierkegaard was not very confident, thus not likely to state unbiased information, thus quite likely to have said something of the ilk of the preceding quote, thus unworthy of my time and attention. I could be wrong, but my current opinion is of greater importance to me than ruminations on the speculations of what may or may not be true regarding someone that isn’t even alive and didn’t seem to have it all together when he was.
The point that I am (finally) approaching is this: We are not changed by the opinions of others unless we allow that change or we are physically unable to resist a forced change. Let’s use as an example a person who is labeled as “worthless” by others. This person may be of low enough self-esteem that they begin to believe this label to be true. They may have felt negated, and they might actually physically negate themselves by some means of self disposal. As another example a person of formidable self-worth, yet unable to move or speak is stuffed in a box labeled “incinerator”. These two examples could be extrapolated and expounded upon to cover pretty much every aspect of how labeling can negate.
The negation could rarely happen immediately because depression is not usually instantaneous and the cleaning lady doesn’t usually get in until after hours.
One label that is thrown around to a point of desensitization is the label ART. Most dictionaries have several definitions of art, ranging from “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance” or “The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium” to “Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks” and “Skills and techniques”.
Personally I think the saturation of the meaninglessness of the term “art” has reached its apex. That’s right, a meaningless saturation apex! Being an artist doesn’t mean anything, it certainly doesn’t make you anything special. On some level everyone is an artist. No matter how banal ones expressions may be, a person cannot but help create something. They cannot help but influence the feelings of others. Even if that influence is just creating a sense of tension or chaos when they enter the room, they have created a unique and recognizable expression that moves people to discuss the work of that artist. They may wait until the artist has left the room, but any publicity is good publicity to an up and coming “edgy” irritation artist. The fact that individuals are recognized for their own particular creation (whether that creation is boredom, chaos, chewing loudly or anything really) shows that nobody can be totally unoriginal. So to say that your “art” is “original” is about as useful as saying nothing, except that it takes up everyone’s valuable time, so it is even less effective than saying nothing. Unless your art IS wasting peoples time, then good job! I’m sure nobody out there does it quite like you, and one day you will find your market.
People say that if you increase your vocabulary you will better be able to express yourself. That would be true if most people were smart and knew the same words as you. But sadly, even the most educated people just end up using more words in imprecise ways. The handful of people who know how to properly use pretty much every english word have to make constant compromises with their speech just to communicate. And a little news flash: the english “sticklers” are just people who are too oblivious to see that they are championing a losing cause. Yes, there are certain things that irritate each of us about the way others use language, but the “rules” will eventually change to accommodate the masses, just as they always have. So, if you’re “right” about some “proper usage” or punctuation scenario, just remember that in 10 or 20 years you will open a book and the rules will have changed to require what used to be “wrong” and the same people you “corrected” will still remember the story and laugh at you velocitously at anecdote parties.
I used to have a ponderous vocabulary, but I quickly learned that you use language primarily to communicate with others, not to write clever notes to yourself (although those notes are funny). Dumb it down and vague it up if you want to communicate.
Dumbing it down is difficult for many of us (I guess it’s a good thing that there aren’t THAT many). There is a certain voluntary cheapening or lessening of one’s self, an elective negation. One needs to decide how many scoops to take out of one’s own heart. What it then comes down to is, how many labels we are willing to accept.
I have always preserved the part I consider to be my “art” (whatever art may be), a visual documentation of “original” thoughts. Something from me, by me and for me, in a language that doesn’t change and doesn’t require labels or translation. On my end it doesn’t change, although I must say that the WORD “art” has changed for me over the years, and has - like so many words that have fallen before it - lost all meaning to me. I don’t mind if other people use it, if it still has meaning to them. I don’t mind if they use other words that don’t apply to what I do, to describe what I do. Even words like “abstract” or “contemporary” that have no descriptive value whatsoever don’t really bother me that much. I will still use such words with many qualifiers to convey a properly developed generalization to an academically inclined noggin.
So I will sometimes call my work “art” even though it may not be art by my definition or perhaps anyone elses. In the past, I have even tried to assign it an ism. I’ve tried Altruistic Depressionism, Objective Associationism, Artism, Artlike Documentationism and many others, but the fact is that none of those describe what I do. What I do describes what I do. I have never made a work of “art” for anyone else, I’ve just done what I wanted to do for whatever my reasons.
I always destroyed and trashed all of my school art projects immediately after the teacher graded them and handed them back to me. This usually resulted in a lower score, going from an A or A+ to a B, C or D instantly. I always wondered what made it so precious to the teacher when it had no meaning to me. Did it have meaning that was somehow negated by its new assignment to be trash? That didn’t make any sense, because it was always trash to me, from the moment the teacher gave us the assignment my process was all about how fast I could destroy the evidence of my compliance. I think the meaning the teacher saw was in the idea that he was helping young people see the value of art in their lives, so when he saw me throw away something created with thought and care, it hurt, and he made a quick show of the fact that he was upset. So, since my audience was visibly affected and could even put a score on it (B,C,D), it must have been art, but it was probably performance art (whatever that is).
Sometimes specificity can become a burden, especially when the information regarding a certain thing obscures what it actually is. Søren Kierkegaard is often quoted as saying “Once you label me you negate me.” I’m not sure of the original context of this statement, nor am I sure that it did indeed come from him, nor am I willing to do the research that would be required to find out. Suffice it to say that a confident person would not be likely to indicate that their personal value was so fleeting as to be snuffed out by a casual encounter with another’s taxonomy. Therefore, I am assuming that Kierkegaard was not very confident, thus not likely to state unbiased information, thus quite likely to have said something of the ilk of the preceding quote, thus unworthy of my time and attention. I could be wrong, but my current opinion is of greater importance to me than ruminations on the speculations of what may or may not be true regarding someone that isn’t even alive and didn’t seem to have it all together when he was.
The point that I am (finally) approaching is this: We are not changed by the opinions of others unless we allow that change or we are physically unable to resist a forced change. Let’s use as an example a person who is labeled as “worthless” by others. This person may be of low enough self-esteem that they begin to believe this label to be true. They may have felt negated, and they might actually physically negate themselves by some means of self disposal. As another example a person of formidable self-worth, yet unable to move or speak is stuffed in a box labeled “incinerator”. These two examples could be extrapolated and expounded upon to cover pretty much every aspect of how labeling can negate.
The negation could rarely happen immediately because depression is not usually instantaneous and the cleaning lady doesn’t usually get in until after hours.
One label that is thrown around to a point of desensitization is the label ART. Most dictionaries have several definitions of art, ranging from “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance” or “The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium” to “Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks” and “Skills and techniques”.
Personally I think the saturation of the meaninglessness of the term “art” has reached its apex. That’s right, a meaningless saturation apex! Being an artist doesn’t mean anything, it certainly doesn’t make you anything special. On some level everyone is an artist. No matter how banal ones expressions may be, a person cannot but help create something. They cannot help but influence the feelings of others. Even if that influence is just creating a sense of tension or chaos when they enter the room, they have created a unique and recognizable expression that moves people to discuss the work of that artist. They may wait until the artist has left the room, but any publicity is good publicity to an up and coming “edgy” irritation artist. The fact that individuals are recognized for their own particular creation (whether that creation is boredom, chaos, chewing loudly or anything really) shows that nobody can be totally unoriginal. So to say that your “art” is “original” is about as useful as saying nothing, except that it takes up everyone’s valuable time, so it is even less effective than saying nothing. Unless your art IS wasting peoples time, then good job! I’m sure nobody out there does it quite like you, and one day you will find your market.
People say that if you increase your vocabulary you will better be able to express yourself. That would be true if most people were smart and knew the same words as you. But sadly, even the most educated people just end up using more words in imprecise ways. The handful of people who know how to properly use pretty much every english word have to make constant compromises with their speech just to communicate. And a little news flash: the english “sticklers” are just people who are too oblivious to see that they are championing a losing cause. Yes, there are certain things that irritate each of us about the way others use language, but the “rules” will eventually change to accommodate the masses, just as they always have. So, if you’re “right” about some “proper usage” or punctuation scenario, just remember that in 10 or 20 years you will open a book and the rules will have changed to require what used to be “wrong” and the same people you “corrected” will still remember the story and laugh at you velocitously at anecdote parties.
I used to have a ponderous vocabulary, but I quickly learned that you use language primarily to communicate with others, not to write clever notes to yourself (although those notes are funny). Dumb it down and vague it up if you want to communicate.
Dumbing it down is difficult for many of us (I guess it’s a good thing that there aren’t THAT many). There is a certain voluntary cheapening or lessening of one’s self, an elective negation. One needs to decide how many scoops to take out of one’s own heart. What it then comes down to is, how many labels we are willing to accept.
I have always preserved the part I consider to be my “art” (whatever art may be), a visual documentation of “original” thoughts. Something from me, by me and for me, in a language that doesn’t change and doesn’t require labels or translation. On my end it doesn’t change, although I must say that the WORD “art” has changed for me over the years, and has - like so many words that have fallen before it - lost all meaning to me. I don’t mind if other people use it, if it still has meaning to them. I don’t mind if they use other words that don’t apply to what I do, to describe what I do. Even words like “abstract” or “contemporary” that have no descriptive value whatsoever don’t really bother me that much. I will still use such words with many qualifiers to convey a properly developed generalization to an academically inclined noggin.
So I will sometimes call my work “art” even though it may not be art by my definition or perhaps anyone elses. In the past, I have even tried to assign it an ism. I’ve tried Altruistic Depressionism, Objective Associationism, Artism, Artlike Documentationism and many others, but the fact is that none of those describe what I do. What I do describes what I do. I have never made a work of “art” for anyone else, I’ve just done what I wanted to do for whatever my reasons.
I always destroyed and trashed all of my school art projects immediately after the teacher graded them and handed them back to me. This usually resulted in a lower score, going from an A or A+ to a B, C or D instantly. I always wondered what made it so precious to the teacher when it had no meaning to me. Did it have meaning that was somehow negated by its new assignment to be trash? That didn’t make any sense, because it was always trash to me, from the moment the teacher gave us the assignment my process was all about how fast I could destroy the evidence of my compliance. I think the meaning the teacher saw was in the idea that he was helping young people see the value of art in their lives, so when he saw me throw away something created with thought and care, it hurt, and he made a quick show of the fact that he was upset. So, since my audience was visibly affected and could even put a score on it (B,C,D), it must have been art, but it was probably performance art (whatever that is).
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Advent of the ladle
It has been just slightly shy of 52 trillion years since ladles first lifted themselves from the primordial soup from which they formed. These marvels of evolution have adapted over the millennia so that today they have come to populate most of the worlds soup kettles and gravy boats and even some the harshest pasta salads. Why has evolution favored the modern day ladle more than its brethren of eons past? For answers we must turn to the science of grave robbing, also known as paleontology, to the uninformed.
Modern grave robbery techniques have come a long way since the dawn of grave robbery, thus with modern tools such as the backhoe and toothbrush we can discern a great deal about a world until now shrouded in mystery - the secret past of the ladle!
A brief history of our limited ladle knowledge
Until recently, scientists believed that the ladle started its existence as a small bowl that eventually grew a dorsal bud which facilitated being grabbed by primates in search of tools. The more tool-like the ladle became, the more useful it was to monkeys. Eventually this resulted in longer and longer ladle handles and rounder “bowls” at their ends.
Although this theory is still taught in some school books, we now know it to be based on misinformation. As “onward and upward” is the motto of people who choose to better themselves, and in light of present bone sifting insights, we must let knowledge reign supreme.
Recent finds in my backyard along with some things people dug up while remodeling their homes, show startling new revelations about ladle evolution. Ladles it seems, did not come from bowls after all. It was in fact the bowl that came from the ladle.
The earliest ladles looked more like bundles of twigs than what we currently think of as a ladle. Besides this, there are many features in the evolution of the ladle that used to be thought of as found “missing links”, among these are spoon holders and pasta sauce lids. We now know these to be dead ends linked only by a diverging course from the ancestors of our modern ladles.
The fossil record helps us to clearly define the path of development of the modern ladle from a soup dweller, to a dormant phase during which it evolved a hole so it could hang from a hook, to its current, amphibious state. Occasionally one may find a ladle without a hole and wonder “What the...?” but this is simply evidence of the marvelous evolutionary heritage of the ladle.
Tracking the ladle
Believe it or not, there was once a time (until 1812) when there was only one known fossilized ladle in all the archives of science. It was misunderstood, handled carelessly, and eventually miscatalogued as a tea infuser. But new evidence once again disrupted all that science knew about ladles when Dr. E. J. Something Or Other discovered a cupboard full of ladles in the pantry of his guest house. Radiocarbon dating was performed on several ladle flakes that were harvested in an inert atmosphere. Sadly the information was corrupted by Mrs. Something Or Other when she mistook the credit to Willard Libby along with the notation of pumpkins on one of the ancient ladle handles as cryptic pumpkin pie instructions. Knowing that even the most stable pumpkin pies had a half-life of only days and not billions or trillions of years, Mrs. Something Or Other set about correcting her husbands recipe. As an added feature the pie was 32% glycerin which allowed for perfect cryogenic preservation.
Although the pie was a great success, the research was all but destroyed. The ladles were put to rest in the Smithsonian and scrapings were no longer allowed due to fears that the ladles were now too weak and had degraded from being taken out of the safety of the cupboard. All that could be done was to take the recipe to impartial experts to see what they said. They said that the recipe didn’t look very stable and that the pie produced would likely be structurally unsound at temperatures approaching 0 degrees Kelvin. On this count they were dead wrong, the pie was lovely, and even at a molecular level its configuration had not been altered by the dismally frigid temperatures. The experts also placed the origin of two of the ladles at 27,453,861,549 to 88,964,342,256 BP or about 27,453,861,605 to 88,964,342,312 B.C.E. At least on this account they were correct! This new information placed the “SOO Spatula” - as it had become known - squarely in the public eye, because it provided a much needed link between the earliest known ladles and these even earlier ladles.
Answering ladle scoffers
What was once mere speculation was now backed by overwhelming evidence. Today the ladle fossil record is indisputable. Even many charts and diagrams have been made. Yet there are still some that argue that the ladle is a product of “probable design”. How do you answer such an uninformed stance? Here are some commonly held ladle myths and responses that kick all ass.
1) Ladles were made by a ladle maker in a factory.
Many people blindly believe that ladles were made in factories that have no identifiable address or shipping routes. They were told this by their parents and their parents learned it from their parents. But has anyone ever actually seen a ladle factory? Have you ever been to a party, or even a cooking convention or housewares expo and met a ladle maker? Of course not! Because they don’t exist, and that is science talking.
2) If early ladles were so advanced why are modern ladles so primitive? Isn’t that devolution?
Again, many believe this but it doesn’t make any sense. The world of ladles was far different in the past and primordial soup was very thick and hearty ( more like a dense stew really) so ladles needed to be more complex in form to accommodate the assignment of bulkier morsels over longer distances to get to what would later become bowls. Try using a modern ladle with a pterosaur dive-bombing you. You can’t do it! So prehistoric ladles looked like bundles of twigs or “faggots” as they are known today.
3) Ladle development has never been observed in a controlled environment so there is no way to be sure what forces were acting on their development.
We don’t need to see every little detail of ladle development to be sure of what acted on them. We have an extensive fossil record that clearly shows ladles to be the oldest of all kitchen utensils. That record shows how ladles adapted over eons to become one of the most respected utensils in the household. Everybody has a ladle, even if you never use it. Ladles have found a way to survive. That’s evolution at work!
4) What about DNA?
It’s a ladle, it has adapted to the point where it no longer needs DNA.
5) Scientists have never been able to successfully produce a ladle.
Just because scientists can’t make a ladle doesn’t mean that they don’t understand the developments that have shaped ladle evolution over the years. Besides, partial ladles have been created in the lab on many occasions, scientists simply haven’t reached a point at which they can assemble an ENTIRE ladle. Seeing that so much progress has been made thus far, there is no reason to doubt that science will be able to create a complete, useable ladle in the next 20-45 years.
6) Aren’t there disagreement between scientists as to how ladles developed?
Debate is a cornerstone of science. Without conflicting ideas we could make no advancement whatsoever. What if everyone agreed to disagree? Or worse, what if they agreed? If everyone agreed, how would we know if we were right? Therefore, if no one is questioning a belief, it must be wrong! If I firmly believed the same thing as everyone else, I’d be trying to figure out why, rather than simply being willing to believe what I already think at face value.
7) There is a lot of talk about ladle evolution, but how did ladles fist come into existence?
The error here is simply being unable to grasp that ladles came into existence over trillions of years in a slow development. The first ladles were both very large and very small. Remember too, that they were not at all ladle shaped (as we think of ladles today) but shaped like faggots. Eventually these ladles fell into disuse and some of these early ladles even formed primitive notches so that they could be hung up when not in use, keeping the primordial kitchen tidy. During this dormant period ladles developed less woody and more metal bodies (when we see ladles with wooden handles, this again is a reminder of their faggotlike history). Today we often see ladles that are entirely made of plastic. There is no denying the evolution of the ladle and they will continue to evolve.
8) If you shook a box full of sticks for a billion years do you really think you would get a ladle?
If you put some soup in the box it is possible. But remember that ladles didn’t develop in boxes, most ladle development occurred after they began to be hung up, the disuse caused them to develop the ability to seem needed as a self preservation mechanism. Also, keep in mind that sticks are not rudimentary ladles, nor are they ladle precursors. Ladles used to RESEMBLE bundles of sticks.
I am confident though that if you hang sticks up for a billion years something neat will happen.
9) What about ladles that have been proven to be dead ends and not “missing links”?
Who cares? Ladles are everywhere. How did they get here? Magic? “Ladle makers”? Sure, there are going to be dead ends, suck it up!
10) The ladle is far too fantastic to have evolved on its own.
There are far simpler things in the world such as metal bars and wire, yet these simpler items are quite similar to spatulas, which are not much different from ladles. And remember, the ladle evolved from something much more complex. So after it became what it was, becoming what it now is, was a cakewalk.
It is important that we all know where basic household items come from because for far too long there have been too many cooks in the kitchen and not enough utensils. Now we have an overwhelming supply of kitchen tools. Were they all made? Hardly. There is too much similarity between them to think anything other than the logical conclusion. They evolved. Besides, the idea of “probable design” assumes the likely existence of a maker. For this to be the case, we would need a ladle maker, a spoon maker, a fork maker, a knife maker, a spatula maker, the list is endless. Is it not the logical, reasonable and responsible course to systematically analyze the similarities between these items so that we can arrange them chronologically and by size and color? Of course it is! Life is short, don’t waste it. Dedicate your life to the pursuit of ladle knowledge.
Modern grave robbery techniques have come a long way since the dawn of grave robbery, thus with modern tools such as the backhoe and toothbrush we can discern a great deal about a world until now shrouded in mystery - the secret past of the ladle!
A brief history of our limited ladle knowledge
Until recently, scientists believed that the ladle started its existence as a small bowl that eventually grew a dorsal bud which facilitated being grabbed by primates in search of tools. The more tool-like the ladle became, the more useful it was to monkeys. Eventually this resulted in longer and longer ladle handles and rounder “bowls” at their ends.
Although this theory is still taught in some school books, we now know it to be based on misinformation. As “onward and upward” is the motto of people who choose to better themselves, and in light of present bone sifting insights, we must let knowledge reign supreme.
Recent finds in my backyard along with some things people dug up while remodeling their homes, show startling new revelations about ladle evolution. Ladles it seems, did not come from bowls after all. It was in fact the bowl that came from the ladle.
The earliest ladles looked more like bundles of twigs than what we currently think of as a ladle. Besides this, there are many features in the evolution of the ladle that used to be thought of as found “missing links”, among these are spoon holders and pasta sauce lids. We now know these to be dead ends linked only by a diverging course from the ancestors of our modern ladles.
The fossil record helps us to clearly define the path of development of the modern ladle from a soup dweller, to a dormant phase during which it evolved a hole so it could hang from a hook, to its current, amphibious state. Occasionally one may find a ladle without a hole and wonder “What the...?” but this is simply evidence of the marvelous evolutionary heritage of the ladle.
Tracking the ladle
Believe it or not, there was once a time (until 1812) when there was only one known fossilized ladle in all the archives of science. It was misunderstood, handled carelessly, and eventually miscatalogued as a tea infuser. But new evidence once again disrupted all that science knew about ladles when Dr. E. J. Something Or Other discovered a cupboard full of ladles in the pantry of his guest house. Radiocarbon dating was performed on several ladle flakes that were harvested in an inert atmosphere. Sadly the information was corrupted by Mrs. Something Or Other when she mistook the credit to Willard Libby along with the notation of pumpkins on one of the ancient ladle handles as cryptic pumpkin pie instructions. Knowing that even the most stable pumpkin pies had a half-life of only days and not billions or trillions of years, Mrs. Something Or Other set about correcting her husbands recipe. As an added feature the pie was 32% glycerin which allowed for perfect cryogenic preservation.
Although the pie was a great success, the research was all but destroyed. The ladles were put to rest in the Smithsonian and scrapings were no longer allowed due to fears that the ladles were now too weak and had degraded from being taken out of the safety of the cupboard. All that could be done was to take the recipe to impartial experts to see what they said. They said that the recipe didn’t look very stable and that the pie produced would likely be structurally unsound at temperatures approaching 0 degrees Kelvin. On this count they were dead wrong, the pie was lovely, and even at a molecular level its configuration had not been altered by the dismally frigid temperatures. The experts also placed the origin of two of the ladles at 27,453,861,549 to 88,964,342,256 BP or about 27,453,861,605 to 88,964,342,312 B.C.E. At least on this account they were correct! This new information placed the “SOO Spatula” - as it had become known - squarely in the public eye, because it provided a much needed link between the earliest known ladles and these even earlier ladles.
Answering ladle scoffers
What was once mere speculation was now backed by overwhelming evidence. Today the ladle fossil record is indisputable. Even many charts and diagrams have been made. Yet there are still some that argue that the ladle is a product of “probable design”. How do you answer such an uninformed stance? Here are some commonly held ladle myths and responses that kick all ass.
1) Ladles were made by a ladle maker in a factory.
Many people blindly believe that ladles were made in factories that have no identifiable address or shipping routes. They were told this by their parents and their parents learned it from their parents. But has anyone ever actually seen a ladle factory? Have you ever been to a party, or even a cooking convention or housewares expo and met a ladle maker? Of course not! Because they don’t exist, and that is science talking.
2) If early ladles were so advanced why are modern ladles so primitive? Isn’t that devolution?
Again, many believe this but it doesn’t make any sense. The world of ladles was far different in the past and primordial soup was very thick and hearty ( more like a dense stew really) so ladles needed to be more complex in form to accommodate the assignment of bulkier morsels over longer distances to get to what would later become bowls. Try using a modern ladle with a pterosaur dive-bombing you. You can’t do it! So prehistoric ladles looked like bundles of twigs or “faggots” as they are known today.
3) Ladle development has never been observed in a controlled environment so there is no way to be sure what forces were acting on their development.
We don’t need to see every little detail of ladle development to be sure of what acted on them. We have an extensive fossil record that clearly shows ladles to be the oldest of all kitchen utensils. That record shows how ladles adapted over eons to become one of the most respected utensils in the household. Everybody has a ladle, even if you never use it. Ladles have found a way to survive. That’s evolution at work!
4) What about DNA?
It’s a ladle, it has adapted to the point where it no longer needs DNA.
5) Scientists have never been able to successfully produce a ladle.
Just because scientists can’t make a ladle doesn’t mean that they don’t understand the developments that have shaped ladle evolution over the years. Besides, partial ladles have been created in the lab on many occasions, scientists simply haven’t reached a point at which they can assemble an ENTIRE ladle. Seeing that so much progress has been made thus far, there is no reason to doubt that science will be able to create a complete, useable ladle in the next 20-45 years.
6) Aren’t there disagreement between scientists as to how ladles developed?
Debate is a cornerstone of science. Without conflicting ideas we could make no advancement whatsoever. What if everyone agreed to disagree? Or worse, what if they agreed? If everyone agreed, how would we know if we were right? Therefore, if no one is questioning a belief, it must be wrong! If I firmly believed the same thing as everyone else, I’d be trying to figure out why, rather than simply being willing to believe what I already think at face value.
7) There is a lot of talk about ladle evolution, but how did ladles fist come into existence?
The error here is simply being unable to grasp that ladles came into existence over trillions of years in a slow development. The first ladles were both very large and very small. Remember too, that they were not at all ladle shaped (as we think of ladles today) but shaped like faggots. Eventually these ladles fell into disuse and some of these early ladles even formed primitive notches so that they could be hung up when not in use, keeping the primordial kitchen tidy. During this dormant period ladles developed less woody and more metal bodies (when we see ladles with wooden handles, this again is a reminder of their faggotlike history). Today we often see ladles that are entirely made of plastic. There is no denying the evolution of the ladle and they will continue to evolve.
8) If you shook a box full of sticks for a billion years do you really think you would get a ladle?
If you put some soup in the box it is possible. But remember that ladles didn’t develop in boxes, most ladle development occurred after they began to be hung up, the disuse caused them to develop the ability to seem needed as a self preservation mechanism. Also, keep in mind that sticks are not rudimentary ladles, nor are they ladle precursors. Ladles used to RESEMBLE bundles of sticks.
I am confident though that if you hang sticks up for a billion years something neat will happen.
9) What about ladles that have been proven to be dead ends and not “missing links”?
Who cares? Ladles are everywhere. How did they get here? Magic? “Ladle makers”? Sure, there are going to be dead ends, suck it up!
10) The ladle is far too fantastic to have evolved on its own.
There are far simpler things in the world such as metal bars and wire, yet these simpler items are quite similar to spatulas, which are not much different from ladles. And remember, the ladle evolved from something much more complex. So after it became what it was, becoming what it now is, was a cakewalk.
It is important that we all know where basic household items come from because for far too long there have been too many cooks in the kitchen and not enough utensils. Now we have an overwhelming supply of kitchen tools. Were they all made? Hardly. There is too much similarity between them to think anything other than the logical conclusion. They evolved. Besides, the idea of “probable design” assumes the likely existence of a maker. For this to be the case, we would need a ladle maker, a spoon maker, a fork maker, a knife maker, a spatula maker, the list is endless. Is it not the logical, reasonable and responsible course to systematically analyze the similarities between these items so that we can arrange them chronologically and by size and color? Of course it is! Life is short, don’t waste it. Dedicate your life to the pursuit of ladle knowledge.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
currency in relationships
Sweet nothing
There’s a dime in my mind recollecting a pain in increments too small to appreciate. There is a logical deficit and a negative balance that goes with it. There’s an abundance of heart but no soul. There’s change to be made, but never enough to trade for a token of faith. If you could afford the time to see me right now I’d probably crack your head open like a broken gumball machine and take all the red ones. I’ll write you a post-dated check... for a penny ...for your thoughts.
Sweetbread dough
You are a reaching plant wanting sun and straining for a chemical reaction. Your food is what happens on the outside and your breath gives life. You are more than just some green, you’re a sugar mamma with big apple lipstick. You’ve climbed the corporate vine and you’re throwing me a line. You’re lush like the tropics. You’re no vegetable honey, but everywhere you go you’re tossing salad. When your wheat is ripe you pluck the heads and spread your bread. No, you’re no veggie baby, but you spread through the roots. Your branches are snug like a multi-national conglomerate bear hug. Sorry about the animal reference.
There’s a dime in my mind recollecting a pain in increments too small to appreciate. There is a logical deficit and a negative balance that goes with it. There’s an abundance of heart but no soul. There’s change to be made, but never enough to trade for a token of faith. If you could afford the time to see me right now I’d probably crack your head open like a broken gumball machine and take all the red ones. I’ll write you a post-dated check... for a penny ...for your thoughts.
Sweetbread dough
You are a reaching plant wanting sun and straining for a chemical reaction. Your food is what happens on the outside and your breath gives life. You are more than just some green, you’re a sugar mamma with big apple lipstick. You’ve climbed the corporate vine and you’re throwing me a line. You’re lush like the tropics. You’re no vegetable honey, but everywhere you go you’re tossing salad. When your wheat is ripe you pluck the heads and spread your bread. No, you’re no veggie baby, but you spread through the roots. Your branches are snug like a multi-national conglomerate bear hug. Sorry about the animal reference.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Sentenced
I milk all the flowers of the world.
Little girls folding old men for tin.
Things left in place are abundant.
Cheese wheels occupy france.
My last time eating dried tape.
Brass nipple factory exhumes bread.
Year supply of prison body flakes.
Waiting lab.
Waiting is the disease that keeps you waiting.
Cake has energy.
Abundance is the feeling of why.
Little girls folding old men for tin.
Things left in place are abundant.
Cheese wheels occupy france.
My last time eating dried tape.
Brass nipple factory exhumes bread.
Year supply of prison body flakes.
Waiting lab.
Waiting is the disease that keeps you waiting.
Cake has energy.
Abundance is the feeling of why.
If we were equals
What’s in a name if we’re all the same and we don’t know the good from the bad? And why should we care who they fry in the chair? If everyone’s evil, should any feel sad? But if it’s really true that I’m better than you, and smarter and much better bred, then even your own validation of my superior creation would be yet another occasion for dispensing unto you my heartiest mockeries.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
