Nothing… yet everything.
Time has always been in short supply for me. Although I enjoy making friends, time has never been my friend, and likely never will be. I persistently try to squeeze a 25-hour day into the standard 24 hours, but it stubbornly refuses to concede every time, time after time. Time is the bane of my existence. It forces me to make choices—choices that I do not want to make. Choices that make me choose between having a cake and eating it, between Disneyland and Neverland.
Randy Pausch died last Thursday of pancreatic cancer at the age of 47, leaving behind a wife and three kids. Seems glum, but he certainly didn’t feel that way. For those of you who haven’t seen his “last lecture” at Carnegie Mellon entitled Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams, it’s here (1h 16m). Highly entertaining and absolutely worth your while.
He’s also written a book entitled The Last Lecture, which I plan to get my hands on soon. I’m told it’s very inspiring.
In truth, while a lot of people find his ideas on how to live life to be fresh and radical, I’ve been exposed to the exact same ideas all my life, as a cultivational Daoist. The difference is that he presents the concepts miles more practically than I’ve ever seen. Kudos to him, and may he RIP.
By the way, this “last lecture” idea isn’t the first. Those of you who have read or seen Tuesdays With Morrie know what I’m talking about.
This blind guy taught himself to find his way around the world with echolocation, just like a dolphin.
Short 3′37″ CBS report:
Extraordinary People 46′ special:
There are no students that fail to learn. There are only teachers that fail to teach.
Of course, this applies only to students that are willing and are making an effort to learn.
I’m not sure where I heard this from, but it has been burned into my memory, and I have adopted it as my own teaching philosophy ever since. I really wish more teachers and professors would think this way.
I think the film Freedom Writers was an incredible example of this philosophy in action. It was based on a true story with real people in Los Angeles. I highly recommend that you check it out, even if you’re not interested in pedagogy. It’s a fantastically moving story, and they didn’t even have to tweak the plot all that much to make it super dramatic.
I’m an organic chemistry TA, and I care very much about what my students think - how cool and suave I am, how I look, how I teach, how I grade, and whether I’m coherent at all. I value their input. Because students who can’t learn don’t exist - there are only teachers who can’t teach. If I don’t get their feedback, how else do I know if I’m even teaching the material?
Deadlines with me are lax, lab report redos are entirely possible (even if against the rules), and I never mind explaining the same thing five times over. The way I run my classes ends up taking lots of time, in class and out, but I feel that I’m doing the right thing. The choices I make are simply manifestations of the above philosophy. Learning shouldn’t be made a chore - it should be fun. I argue that the teacher-student relationship should as personal as possible, without all the barriers of professionalism. Personal, down-to-earth professors are the best, aren’t they?
I don’t even think I’m a great teacher. (Though I do love to teach.) Sometimes I’m not as well prepared for lab as I could be. Other times I miss errors or omissions in lab reports. But from the little experience I’ve had - it seems that none of that matters. If you follow this philosophy, you simply succeed as a teacher.
My student evaluations from this past semester are attached here to attest to this philosophy. (Rare opportunity for me to gloat - carpe diem!)
I was wondering today how long the data on my CDs would last. So I did some Googling.
From OSTA, I found that:
NIST’s special publication 500-200 gave more concrete values. I trust these numbers more.
Of course, quality varies from one manufacturer to another, and it will likely also improve over time. But these numbers give a good idea. I guess this confirms that the optical disk is still not only the cheapest, but also the most reliable, form of storage. It’s doubtful that I’ll need the information on my CDs in more than 80 years from now - if I even live to be that old. (Frankly, I prefer to die younger and healthy than to die old, decrepit, and dependent.)
Below is a story apparently found at Jimmy John’s. I have adapted it for grammar and style from Mike Geronsin’s Pitchfever Music Academy Blog. I like this story. Makes you think.
An American businessman was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellow-fin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them. The Mexican replied, “Only a little while.” The American then asked the Mexican why he didn’t stay out longer to catch more fish. The Mexican replied that he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs. The American then asked, “But what do you do with the rest of your time?”
The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife Maria, and stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life, señor.”
The American scoffed. “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and, with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats. Eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you could sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA, and eventually NYC, where you would run your expanding enterprise.”
The Mexican fisherman asked, “But señor, how long would this all take?” The American replied, “15-20 years.”
“But what then, señor?”
The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right, you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich - you would make millions.”
“Millions, señor? Then what?”
The American said, “Then you would retire - move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, and stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play guitar with your amigos.”
I’ve heard about string theory for some time now, but I’ve never taken the time to learn more about it until now. I basically spent a good few hours watching free videos online, and now I’m telling you about what I did. You’re in for a treat.
First, you might find it interesting to watch these two YouTube videos on the first ten dimensions. They are great illustrations of the concepts found in the first chapter of Rob Bryanton’s Imagining the Tenth Dimension (book, website). If you get lost after about the 5th or 6th dimension, don’t worry - I did too. Re-watching the later parts helps with understanding a little better, though.
Then comes the better part. If you have time to kill, watch NOVA’s 3-hour The Elegant Universe series on string theory and why it’s such an amazing prospect. There actually used to be only ten proposed dimensions, but after five different string theory ideas were introduced, all with very different math, Edward Witten came along and proposed an eleventh dimension to unite all these ideas.
It’s interesting to note how the strings in string theory actually closely resemble Laozi’s ancient idea of a Dao. If I didn’t hate math so much, I think I’d love to be a string theory physicist.
I’m finding myself in what you might call a tangiblistic or physicalistic episode at the moment. In fact, I’ve found myself adopting more and more of guichemot’s views - for those of you who have seen him around i0.
This is a little amusing, because it is the complete opposite mindset from the one I was in a year ago, when I convinced myself that all things physical or tangible were ultimately of no consequence due to their ephemeral natures. Back then, I was caught in the trap of kong tan (空談), or empty talk. For the longest time, I have been trying to find a balance between being super emptyistic and spiritualistic versus being too tangiblistic and physicalistic. Now, I’m stuck in the latter world, and quite frankly, it’s not really that bad of a feeling.
We have a Daoist convention series going on in mid-August, and I’ll report back on this thereafter. In the meantime, any new posts will likely not be spiritualistically relevant.
I have always known that Einstein had some pretty cool and unique views on religion, but I haven’t looked into it much until today. I regret not having done so sooner! Found some really great quotes.
Religion without science is blind.
Some people really need some of this sense talked into them!
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.
I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
I do not try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
I too agree that the idea of a personal, personified God is silly. These quotes precisely illustrate how I like to look at the world myself. Maybe that means I’m a genius too! (ha)
One thing that sets us apart, though, is his definition of “religion,” which is a little too broad for my taste. Take a look at these quotes:
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Clearly, when he said “religion,” he wasn’t referring to your classic ones. I think he meant something like a more personal religion or belief system - which I would hesitate to call “religion,” because I find myself in the same boat, and I don’t like to call myself “religious.” Meh, it’s all good!
Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things as a meaningful unity.
There’s a nicely related NY Times excerpt from the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins that I highly recommend. He seems to share my view on the words “God” and “religion.” (I wanted to excerpt some of it here, but it said I needed the publisher’s permission. Too messy.)
Don’t miss my previous discussion of how religions are simply just tools of cultivation/self-improvement.
Latest comment
RSS