<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Monadology</title>
      <link>http://monadology.net/</link>
      <description>In search of the unifying principle.</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:15:50 -0500</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=4.01</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

      
      <item>
         <title>St. John&apos;s College Website</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Thank the gods, the <a href="http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/">St. John's College website</a> has been redesigned.  It's not perfect, nor perfectly suited to my taste, but at least it's professional again.  There's lots of padding and even the Flash piece on the homepage is tasteful.  Maybe I'll do a write-up on my specific reactions to it, but in general... I just feel much better about the world now.  Anyone know anything about the process?  Who did the design?</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/st_johns_college_website.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/st_johns_college_website.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:15:50 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>What We Praise</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Andrew Sullivan quotes <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/what-obama-brin.html">an anecdote</a> from <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2008/06/12/obama-the-university-of-chicago-democrat.aspx">Cass R. Sunstein</a> about Barack Obama.  Regardless of one's particular take on Obama the man, I can't help but feel some amount of hope when the world takes notice of and praises things that seem to me to be genuinely noble.  The fact that there are a certain amount of people who are simply delighted at the possibility of having a president who listens well, who considers other possibilities, and has a genuinely investigative temperament makes me feel slightly better about things.  One of my biggest hopes, in fact, for an Obama presidency is that he will help to subtly shift our expectations of our leaders.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/what_we_praise.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/what_we_praise.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:45:48 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Dreams</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>What follows is a recounting of a dream I had last night.  I'm putting it in the extended entry so that no one who is uninterested in such things is forced to read it.  I'm not sure it serves any purpose other than personal.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/dreams_1.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/dreams_1.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:58:37 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Canadians: Weak-minded</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Canada, like much of the western world, has a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss">thought police</a>. That is, they don't believe in the concept of free speech as defined by the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment.  Now we know why:</p>

<p><em>"Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech," Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. "We don't subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat."</em></p>

<p>This statement pretty much captures why I endorse the modern, extreme form of free speech that developed in American jurisprudence over the 20th century. Limiting speech, even hate speech, makes your people wimpy. It's a vicious cycle.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/philosophical-slant/canadiansweakminded.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/philosophical-slant/canadiansweakminded.php</guid>
         <category>Philosophical Slant</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:40:39 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Pet Peeves</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Some pet peeves that I should probably get over.  (But most likely won't.)</p>


<ul>
<li>Anyone <em>ever</em> using the word "squee".</li>
<li>People talking about their brain, and how weird/funny/strange it is.  Thanks, I get how smart you think you are.</li>
<li>Use of the phrase "Who does that?" in a rhetorical manner to imply that things not practiced by a sufficient quantity of people are somehow invalid.</li>
<li>People who walk slowly.</li>
<li>99% of political cartoons.  Stupid bully pulpits.</li>
<li>People who continue to say "bless you" every time after a string of consecutive sneezes.  Once a day is sufficient.</li>
<li>Professional sports.</li>
<li>Overly dismissive and self-satisfied lists. (D'oh.)</li>
</ul>

]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/pet_peeves.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/pet_peeves.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:09:29 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Ebert FTW</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Ebert's got some great lines in <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/06/sex_and_the_city_dog.html">a recent blog post</a>, responding to a reader who agreed that the <cite>Sex and the City</cite> movie sucked, but urged him to check out the series should he have the opportunity:</p>

<blockquote><p>I regret, Ian, that I will never have the opportunity. Wild horses could not drag me to the opportunity. <span class="caps">SATC </span>is so definitely not my cup of tea that, for me, it is not tea at all, and does not come in a cup.</p></blockquote>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/ebert_ftw.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/ebert_ftw.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:46:21 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Family Guy Sucks</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>I was horrified by <em>South Park</em> when it came on the air.  I still find many episodes too disgusting to watch, and a significant amount of the humor is just dumb.  But I must admit to having been wooed over the years by the sardonic vision of Parker and Stone.  I suppose it's the unrepentant preachiness that attracted my notice first.  (Whole plot points are devoted to letting characters say something repeatedly that has a literal meaning in the story and a more obvious contextual meaning outside it.  Example: in one episode, police have to negotiate with Tom Cruise to come out of hiding in the closet of Stan Marsh's room.  I can't count the number of times they were able to have characters say, "Tom Cruise, come out of the closet!")  For me, this endless succession of bones to pick and axes to grind makes the show's stories much more interesting than they would otherwise be.  And, frankly, I think the show's kept up its quality (such as it is) remarkably well over the years.</p>

<p>It was a pleasure, then, to watch <em>The Cartoon Wars</em> episodes recently and have them skewer <em>The Family Guy</em> so beautifully, a show about which I cannot say enough ill.  You can get an excellent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Family_Guy#Family_Guy_vs._South_Park">summary of their criticisms here</a>, or just go <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103230">watch those episodes</a>.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/family_guy_sucks.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/family_guy_sucks.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:59:32 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Iron Man / Seven Samurai</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Iron Man, 3/5 monads:</strong></p>

<p><em>Iron Man</em> is probably the best and most accurate transfer of comic to film of any comic-book movie to-date.  Its script follows worn, familiar cadences and the plot arc of its hero--in which a successful inventor and weapons dealer discovers that maybe weapons development <em>isn't</em> the purely humanitarian endeavor he thought it was--is just about the right level of profundity for me-at-thirteen.  This is, in my opinion, a completely authentic reproduction of the level of quality of the majority of Marvel comics, and certainly <em>Iron Man</em>, who was never one of my favorites.  But the extra time and attention that a feature-length film gets made this formula unusually well-crafted.  Its familiar tropes just work a little bit better here than they do in most comic-book movies.  In fact, the whole thing felt like a genre getting really comfortable with itself: no, this isn't their bid for Oscar glory.  (They tried that with <em>Hulk</em>, a substantial movie by Ang Lee that alienated everyone but me and the Onion AV Club.)  But this is the first movie I've seen that is almost devoid of any personal, artistic directorial flair (unlike <em>Spider-Man</em>) that's also... pretty good.</p>

<p>If Marvel can duplicate that in expanding Iron Man's world (his character begs to be in collaboration... there's just not that much room to explore with him) as they clearly intend to do (stay through the credits... <span class="caps">ALWAYS </span>stay through the credits), I think they will richly deserve the success they get.</p>

<p><strong>Seven Samurai, 5/5 monads:</strong></p>

<p>Oh, hey, someone else watched <em>Seven Samurai</em> for the first time and thought it kicked ass.  <span class="caps">ALERT THE PRESSES. </span> Yes, I'm late to the party.  Very, very late.  But, still: it's a delight to watch such a wonderful film for the first time.  I didn't realize, of course, that it was over three hours long when I picked it for Koine: this was the first time we didn't have time for a discussion.  But it was wonderful to sit in a room full of people, all of us enthralled by the flickering grey light that recreated for us that fascinating, beautiful village with its seven guests.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/iron_man_seven_samurai.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/iron_man_seven_samurai.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 10:13:28 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Pro-Life for Obama</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=27820">Doug Kmiec, a pro-life Roman Catholic, reaffirms and explains his support of Barack Obama</a>.  Among other thoughts that seem, to me, to be sound: "I believe that my faith calls upon me at this time to focus on new efforts and untried paths to reduce abortion practice in America."</p>

<p>Also: I like Catholic Online's favicon.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/prolife_for_obama.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/prolife_for_obama.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 09:16:53 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>M&apos;s Mix</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://nepomuk.muxtape.com/">Mirabai's new mix</a>, which you should all have been informed of by <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/MonadologicalMuxtapes">this feed</a>, is something to write home about.  Just the right combination of songs that impress upon one the eclectic tastes of the mixer, songs of delightful novelty, and songs that are simply beautiful.  My own current mix manages to turn a bunch of my favorite songs into a jarring and uncomfortable whole.  Time to begin a new one.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/ms_mix.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/ms_mix.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 19:24:22 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Not that I necessarily agree with this...</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>In fact, I really don't know what to make of it: apparently, wearing shoes <a href="http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/">isn't good</a> for you. It disrupts the natural muscular and biomechanical rhythms we've already got built within us and makes us walk in ways that are bad for our joints and muscles. (Actually, the phenomenological description of walking in the article, as an immediate response to the ground producing what we feel as balance, is pretty good.) Add this to the list of things like <a href="http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html">grains</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil">petroleum</a>, and even the <a href="http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=107&amp;Itemid=1">combination</a> <a href="http://nysun.com/news/food-crisis-eclipsing-climate-change">of the two</a> through which modern science is now vindicating nature and critiquing sometimes very basic and certainly widespread instances of human contrivance. Now, in itself, that's really not too surprising; science has, after all, been pointing out errors in our contrivance for some time, telling us for instance that bathing is in fact not unhealthy and that lead-based medicines are (although the last lesson <a href="http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php">hasn't always stuck</a>). I guess what has struck me over the two years or so is how modern science is now describing--or at least having certain findings publicized--how very basic parts of modern civilization are inherently contrary to human biological pr planet-wide climatological processes.  Using contrivance to make our lives easier in the short term turns out to have destructive or at least limiting long-term consequences. </p>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/not_that_i_necessarily_agree_w.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/not_that_i_necessarily_agree_w.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:28:16 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Wright, Wright, Wright</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>I'm <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/wrights-poison.html">sick of it, Andrew</a>.  I haven't had time to read or watch Wright's comments in full, but the ones Mr. Sullivan quotes are clearly within the sphere of opinions that could be held by good people, by people with arguments, people whose arguments--even if wrong--might actually improve the world if we had the kind of society that could deal with consideration of them.  I fear that the main thing Sullivan--and so many others--are reacting to is that they cannot tolerate a world without heroes and villains.  All victims must be <em>unequivocally</em> righteous; all villains must be <em>unequivocally</em> repudiated.  American public will is like aggressive chemotherapy: we care little for the wholesale destruction of healthy humanity if it's anywhere near something we deem a cancer.</p>

<p>At any rate, if I go on to read Wright's full remarks and the next line is something like, "All white people must die," I'll probably have some back-pedaling to do.  But am I really, <em>really</em> expected to get furious at this man because he reiterated the accusation that America might have reaped what it sowed in 9/11?  This is the opposite of justifying terrorism, or saying America "deserved" it; on the contrary, it's an unequivocal attack on terrorism of any kind.</p>

<p>I <em>am</em> a bit angry at Wright for not sitting down and being quiet.  Some of us would really like this Obama guy to be President, okay?</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/wright_wright_wright.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/wright_wright_wright.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:02:41 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>My Totem</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>It's a pleasure to be reminded, sometimes, that I'm named after an animal <a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e93_1208562044">that really fucks up other animals' shit</a>.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/my_totem.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/my_totem.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:13:21 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Feed your monad</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>In response to a request from our esteemed colleague Robbie, I've created <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/MonadologyCommentsFeed">an <span class="caps">RSS </span>feed just for comments</a>.  (You can also find this by clicking on the <span class="caps">RSS </span>icon in your address bar.)  Wonder no longer if I've waited six months to reply to something you wrote.  Those who end up using this feed should feel free to let me know if any alterations would make it more usable.</p>

<p>I've also created a feed of <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/MonadologicalMuxtapes">all Monadological Muxtapes</a> using the crazy <a href="http://pipes.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Pipes</a>.  (Yahoo! Pipes is crazy fun to play around with, by the way.)  It should let us keep track of when people are adding new music to their mixes, which I intend to do presently to test it.  Keep me posted if you are <em>not</em> on here and would like to be.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/feed_your_monad.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/feed_your_monad.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:49:01 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>On Superman</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Notes for a future entry.  This article: <a href="http://www.bamkapow.com/bk-feature-why-superman-will-always-suck-1189-p.html">Why Superman Will Always Suck</a>.</p>

<p>Glad it was written: Superman needs to be talked about.  Disagree for various reasons.</p>


<ul>
<li>Power given &gt; power earned.  Yes.  Yes!  How fundamentally human that is.  We are powerful beyond imagining, with no idea why on earth we should have it, or how we could possibly merit it.</li>
</ul>




<ul>
<li>Superman chooses vulnerability.  Dispassion toward others would leave him invulnerable; concern for others makes him mortal.  Superman doesn't need kryptonite to be defeatable, he just needs Lois, his parents, Jimmy, &amp;c.</li>
</ul>




<ul>
<li>Moral absolutism.  Many interesting stories already written on this angle.  Frank Miller often uses Superman as someone able to be made miserably complicit in the evil of others because of his sympathy, or moral simplicity.  Makes him the perfect foil for Batman, who is cynical and pragmatic.  But frightening.  Superman's weakness is that he sees so clearly the way the world ought to be.  Deeply sympathetic.</li>
</ul>

]]></description>
         <link>http://monadology.net/archives/on_superman.php</link>
         <guid>http://monadology.net/archives/on_superman.php</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:32:11 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
