Fluid Objectivity

Well, most of us have filled up our empty hours with our eyes glued to the TV watching the Olympics. I have heard from more than one commentator that he or she disapproves of the "harsh criticism" given by the judges or coaches. Specifically, I would like to reference the American pole-vaulter Jenn Stuczynski "scandal" in which immediately following her silver medal finish, her coach spoke to her in an "almost rude" and "definitely not encouraging" fashion.

Granted, it is great to win the silver medal, but when did it become the commentator's job to determine whether the coach is doing his job right? Perhaps in training Stuczynski had prepared to do a much higher jump than she performed. maybe her skills were higher than she demonstrated. Who knows. Either way, it is her coach's job to either give her positive or negative reinforcement as he sees necessary. When you reach that high of a stage, the difference between receiving a gold medal, a silver medal, or a bronze medal is not significant except for the fame and glory that come with them. The most important thing (or at least what ought to be the most important thing) is whether the athlete performed to the best of his or her ability. If she could have done better, more power to the coach for telling her how. Unless this is the end of her career, as it was with Laura Wilkinson, the platform diver from the US, then she always has the potential to get better. Also, if the athletes do not receive the harshest criticism at this stage of their game (from the judges and coaches), then when are they going to get it?

And what is up with these track stars changing coaches at a whim? Honestly, if a young athlete (say, in their teens) changed coaches as often as Jeremy Wariner or hired their own personal coach as Dara Torres did, then they would never have the most important part of an athletic mindset - developing relationships and purposes in life! If you want to be the best athlete in the world, the first thing you have to learn is trust, then determination, then a pursuit of excellence. These athletes have gotten too cocky and I am glad to see some of them fail miserably. I am also glad to see a coach who tells his athlete when she could have done better. Stop babying and glorifying these athletes and treat them as human beings.

I have to grant that the commentators this year have never been viewed as reliable sources for making specific analyses of crucial situations, but have instead often made broad assumptions and generalizations about anything they think they have knowledge about. Oh well, at least these games have been fun to watch.

My First Time

I recently read part of my first issue of Touchstone Magazine (as a result of a confession--non-sacramental--to Father Patrick Henry Reardon that I had never read the publication) and read for the first time a writing sample of Peter J. Leithart. Many people have respect for this man as an intellectual contemporary theologian, though I only read a very brief comment in the beginning of the magazine. The comment that he made is somewhat pertinent to my stalled-out series on the depth of language and literary theory, so I will quote it in full:

Consensual Silence

Meaning in language depends upon consensus. The sound "cat" denotes a feline to English speakers because English speakers agree that it does. French speakers can make no sense of the sound, but say "chat" (without the "t") and everything becomes clear.

Augustine gives a near twist to this common notion. Not only do we know what words mean because a group agrees, but learning what words mean involves coming to agreement with those who use the word. Learning that "katze" means "cat" unites me, in a small way, with all the German-speakers.

This is the heart of Augustine's analysis of the dangers of superstition. If an astrologer says, "If Venus is in the fifth house, you'll fall in love," and I agree, even if I agree simply by failing to disagree, I have formed a pact with falsehood. Worse, by agreeing with the astrologer, I've entered into a league with the demons who inspired his false signs in the first place.

Confronted with a false word, there is no way to remain neutral, to let it slide. I must either enter into fellowship with falsehood or break the consensus by disagreeing and telling the truth. "No," I must say to the astrologer, "Venus doesn't mean that."

Such disagreement is a liberation. But Augustine's analysis also raises disturbing questions about our culture's mania for politeness. What kind of villainy do we tolerate when we smile and smile and refuse to disagree?

Focus on Leithart's phrase, "his false signs." Note the importance, as I stressed in the first major installment of the S&M series, of the use of the correct signs. Naturally, I would expect all readers to agree, yet be at a loss as to where they define false from true signs. If by our mere disagreement we can falsify the signs of another, fine. But if the truth or falsehood of the statement and the sign created by the string of words in the statement (note that each word is a sign in itself and put together they form a new sign...) is intrinsic to the sign and cannot be changed, then we are at a quandary--we must first know whether the sign is true or false before agreeing or disagreeing! Please wait with extreme anticipation for my follow-up on how we create meaning through the "making" of signs which should be forthcoming as soon as I get settled in my new home (though who knows how long that will be.)

Universes's First Manmade Electrostatic Binary Orbit

Yes I've been delaying too long making my latest and as of yet greatest post.

On July 17, 2008, I participated in a ground breaking experiment. A team from Rhodes College journeyed to Ellington Field in Houston, TX to conduct research aboard NASA's modified C9-B code-named the Weightless Wonder and know colloquially as the "Vomit Comet." Used for training astronauts, the Vomit Comet flies parabolic maneuvers simulating weightlessness for a period of approximately 30 secs. NASA's education office has a program that allows undergrads to fly an experiment on board the aircraft and experience microgravity, something few human beings get a chance to do.

Our experiment's objective was to create the world's first purely electrostatic binary orbit. In layman's, we wanted to get two graph-coated spheres roughly the size of ping pong balls to orbit around each other in zero gravity. The theory behind this is that since Newton's Law of Gravitation (which creates the planetary and stellar orbits we all know and love) is mathematically similar to Coulomb's Law of Electrostatic Attraction, electrical attraction between two objects should also create orbits. This has never, EVER, been done before with two free-floating objects.

This was not an easy task-alot of sweat, blood, and tears were poured into this experiment, along with tons of 2x4's, screws, and cash. But the NASA training we received was awesome, the experience one of a kind, and the results 100% gratifying. I have the pleasure of showing you one of our successful orbits (you can't really see me, I'm the operator on the right just out of the camera frame):

Eletrostatic Binary Orbit

Delays

Due to an upcoming move and apparent lack of interest in the series, I will postpone the second full installment of "Signs and Metaculture" until further notice. I will, however post a brief follow-up to "S&M: 'Sign' and the 'Transcendental Signified' 1.2" as soon as possible. Please keep in mind that responses are most welcome and might help to make future posts more accesible.

Until then...