Another notch in the single-tasker’s belt

(I realized this morning that many of my own words, on this blog at least, are reactions to the words and thoughts of others. No man is an island.)

From “Ear Plugs to Lasers: The Science of Concentration” was in the NYT today. This was a very interesting article to me, for a few reasons.

1. This is more support for a lifestyle of single-tasking.

2. The problem is clearly defined, and requires little external evidence; everyone feels unproductive in this fast-paced world of progress and production. Everyone. Problem defined: we can’t pay attenti… hmm. I’m hungry. I need to pay some bills too. And get gas. No not that kind of gas, got plenty of that. I need to finish my Lewis lecture, and get immunizations, and… oh, blog.

3. The article comes so close to suggesting what I think is the only solution: clear your life; change your attitude toward things; reevaluate; reset; develop the virtue of contemplation (thinking long and lovingly about X); have a disposition of focus; today’s troubles are enough; the moment’s troubles are enough.

4. But it doesn’t suggest that. It shouts out to “meditation” but other than that, expects that technology (externalities) are able to fix us, without a meaningful change from within. Put in ear plugs; attach “a frikkin’ laserbeam to your head” to neurologically change your brain to pay attention. I wish I was kidding, but this is how twacked we’ve gotten. That’s transhumanism – this device would take us one step closer to merging into an unholy chimera of man and machine. Just wait for the suggestion of an implant.

5. Cool shout outs to William James and Milton, but I’m not sure if the context works to apply their thoughts. (I’ve never read either of those quotes though…)

6. I am (regardless of my blogbashings) supremely guilty of multi-tasking. But when I can sit and focus for a large block of time (the book/article suggests 90 minutes, but I’m thinking more like 2-4 hours) on the top priorities of my professional, vocational life… Oh! The happy state! I feel whole. I feel united.

Theoretical notch or not, this doesn’t change the fact that we are a culture of divided individuals. Say what you will about “connection” or “unity” with others… we need wholeness and unity within ourselves. (And something tells me that the two are more intimately related than I already think.)

Performative Speech Acts and Do-Overs and Bibles and Such

How to Do Things With Words

Guys, I’m sorry. I just can’t help it. It’s too interesting to a philosophy and linguistics double major. The following is a speech act – specifically, a “performative utterance.” That is, upon complete and accurate speaking of these words, in the appropriate context (as defined by the Constitution and American democratic tradition, in this case), the speaker not only has said something, but some act has been performed. Like me making a bet, “$10 on Timely Rider,” or me and Lani saying “I do” on March 31, 2007; or like God saying “Let there be light.”; or like…

Performing on Tuesday... or maybe not...

“I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

J.L. Austin (PIPE!)

J.L. Austin was the first to take up performative utterances as a topic in philosophy of language. His student John Searle followed him. I took Searle’s class on Philosophy of Language when I was in school. A performative is an illocutionary act that bears to “truth value” – that is, it can’t be true or false. Rather, Austin and Searle offer that the sentence is either “felicitous” or “infelicitous” (“happy” or “unhappy”). A performative is only happy when it’s fulfilled.

John R. Searle

There are plenty of articles about the transposition of “faithfully.” Here are the articles (well, just a few of them).

AJC
NYT
Guardian
Steven Pinker

Pinker’s is the most interesting since he’s a cognitive scientist and linguist, and he explains the syntax of the problem (Roberts initially administered what is commonly thought to be more grammatically correct, that is, he did it without “splitting the verb” “will execute” with “faithfully”; but the Constitution does commit that grammatical error of splitting the verb…).

I’m not all that bothered about an inaugural do-over. I think it’s good that they “made sure.” And I think we go too far to say (as some have in fact said) that the oath doesn’t even matter, and that, regardless of the oath (or accuracy thereof), the prez-elect is officially prez at 12:00 p.m. during the inauguration. But then why even bother with the words? Well, because the oath and promise means something, and that’s one of the necessary conditions for being president (I don’t think it’s a sufficient condition, since it depends on other things as well).

But now, regarding the absence of a Bible…

It’s a little weird that he would flub while performing his oath WITH the Bible, but then arrange for an official do-over WITHOUT the Bible. Not to mention that the flub had to do with the word “faithfully.”

This explanation, cited in the Guardian, from US Constitution Online, isn’t sufficient I don’t think. In fact it kinda bothers me:

“There is no constitutional requirement that the oath be sworn on a Bible. There is also no prohibition. So, a Bible can be used, but so could anything, including the Koran, the Talmud, or a copy of Sports Illustrated. The point is not where the president’s hand rests when he or she takes the oath, but that the oath be recited, and then carried out.”

On the one hand, I agree that the important thing is the oath is taken and witnessed, but surely the physical presence and physical contact with the Holy (read: authoritative standard) Bible provides a reference for holding the person making the oath accountable. Does it bother anyone else? Do tell. I’m starting to sound like a Fundie conspiracy theorist. There are two questions here though: what ARE the necessary conditions? (touching a Bible doesn’t seem to be regarded as a necessary condition) and what SHOULD the necessary conditions be? And more specifically, do those necessary conditions for becoming president include inaugural traditions like using a Bible or having a Federal Justice administer?

Maybe boring to most. Interesting to me. But it could be historically and culturally important (and potentially indicative of a growing secularism) – if for no other reason that this would be the first time in our history that a president took an OFFICIAL oath of office without the Bible. A precedent, if you will. And maybe this has a lot to do with vocation, or literally, “vocare” – calling. No doubt, Obama’s vocation is tied to this oath. And given the traditional (albeit religious) sense of vocation – something that is God-given, spoken by the Divine, Personal Logos – what might that mean for the official version of the oath? Hmm.

Nevertheless, here’s to a felicitous presidency. Lord help him.

More on Humanities, the University and Classical Education

I was only recently introduced to the work and thought of Victor Davis Hanson. But from what I’ve heard and read, I’m looking forward to more.

In this article, he points out the value and benefit of a classical education (i.e., the study of classical history, literature, philosophy, philology, architecture, etc… the ancient stuff!). The benefits are: (1) Acquisition of generic methods of inquiry (what we’d call “critical thinking” or “how to think about life”), (2) Conveyance of “an older, tragic view of man’s physical and mental limitations at odds with the modern notion of life without limits” (I’m into that), and (3) Framing the “window of the West” (he argues that all subsequent trends of the Western culture/intellect, such as the medieval or modern eras, are really just tributes to or turnings from Antiquity and Classical tradition).

And he laments the loss of this classical education and study, which has led to, he argues, the degradation and shallowing of the American university. I’m still only learning about this; and being a product of the American university myself, I’m a little embarrassed for how I’ve served as an example of the shallowing Davis worries about.

But I worry about it too, and thankfully, my time in the university is not yet over (nor will it ever be over, if I could have it my way). I’m glad to be introduced to this at 26 years old, rather than 36, 46, or never… if there is life after 46… c’mon, just jokin’ ya! All to say, I’m intrigued, and wondering how I’m going to:

Learn Latin, Greek and Hebrew

Read primary accounts of classical history

Read Homer, Virgil, Marcus Aurelius, Plato, Aristotle (not to mention their critics)

Work my way through all the other important thinkers and writers and historians of the West

And still have time to walk Margaux.

Aye. God help me. I sense the looming, foreboding, impending temptation to multitask or take a speed-reading course.
Here’s to a patient and finite life of exploring the history of humanity, the plight of the fragile human condition, and the limits of my own existence!

On a Personal Note…

I’m applying to graduate school. Two places, both of which are tantalizing Lani and me: Regent College and Talbot School of Theology. The applications are in, and I’ll find out sometime soon. April probably.

We have no which one we’ll end up at, so it’s something that we’re asking God and each other about quite a bit. The pros are heavy for both schools, and there are few cons, which makes the decision pretty tough.

This is new. God help us!

Here’s the Personal Statement I wrote for Regent. Just a little taste of my tastes.