aesmael

Tonight I am remembering that about a month and a half back I had an idea for a multi-generational art piece, which I shared with my most beloved people.
But if any suspected the underlying goal of the piece none voiced the thought. The function of the poem is to embed directions for displaying the statue into the piece itself - I think now it might be better to have the text on a page held by the left hand, while the right hand is outstretched - so that whoever comes into possession of the statue after my death would know to place it at a location that gets a lot of foot traffic. In the long term the goal of the piece would be to have many hundreds and thousands of people touching the hand of the statue over time, as my impression is that such repeated handling will wear and transform the colour of that part of the statue to a more golden one.

The central idea is to create a quietly mass participatory artwork which over decades or centuries will show the connection of many human hands each making contact with the same object. An enduring marker to show we were and are here. But sculpture is hard. I don't know when or if I could make such a work especially when there are so many other projects I would like to complete.

Originally published at a denizen's entertainment. You can comment here or there.

A while back the folks at LibraryThing started an Open Shelves Classification project (OSC, which makes me think of Orson Scott Card whenever I read it). There was even a round of beta testing in which LibraryThing members were invited to try and sort books into top level categories, to see how well the system was working.

Recently I have been spending more time at LibraryThing and Musicbrainz, having decided that 'now' is the time to ensure my collections are properly catalogued. I got curious about the state of the OSC project, having not heard much about it since the beginning of the year, so for the past couple of days I have been reading the Build the Open Shelves Classification group. I started from the bottom of the page and have been reading upward, trying to build a sense of context. So far I am still early on, reading the discussion threads on the initial round of testing that was the last I heard of the project and getting a bit frustrated with what I see going on in it although I do not know how things have progressed since.

The project as I understand it is to build a system for shelving works which is open source and easily usable by most for finding things, and to overcome the shortcomings of existing shelving systems. It is supposed to be a system for deciding how to organise material in a physical space and not some sort of abstract classification or cataloguing system, yet because this involves arranging things according to what they are deemed to most be 'about' I think it cannot help touching upon those territories.

My frustration comes from things like this: after reading several threads discussing matters like dividing items by audience (e.g. Children's, Young Adult), language, or format (e.g. prose, play, DVD) and what appeared to be a consensus that optional facets should be used, so a library that wanted to separate by format would be able to do so while one that did not wish to do so was not required to if they followed the system. So it was frustrating to then see in the first round of testing Comics & Graphic Novels as its own top-level category. This was precisely the situation that apparent consensus on optional facets was seemed suited for handling, and there seemed no clear consensus on whether graphic works should be separated out or interfiled. It seemed a lot like a crisis of disorganisation, although I suspect whatever was done with graphic works there would have been some sort of panic since they can include both fiction and non-fiction.

There were also some complaints that science was granted a single top-level category, while what are often called the social sciences (and other areas) were spread around. Despite initially being reserved about that, it does make sense to me since there are plenty of works about science generally, although I don't know this isn't true for other areas that were split up, and a place elsewhere could presumably be found elsewhere for them (philosophy->science ?).

The point was made at the start, which I agree with, that a shelf-organising project like this is foredoomed to failure somewhere as soon as it begins. Compromises will have to be made somewhere, there will be some number of works which don't fit easily into one category and not others, and how people sort the world is going to be culturally biased. The goal is to create a system which maximises ease of browsing, but I think even if the terms and codes can be translated themselves, it may in the end be better to create a new shelving system from almost scratch for different cultures than attempt to be human-universal.

What all these misgivings did accomplish was getting me to consider how I would go about devising a shelving system. So now you get to see my thoughts on that unless you are quick enough to scroll or close the page in time. As I said just a paragraph above, I think any such system is going to have significant points of failure, especially concerning multidisciplinary works or syntheses, and I have little idea if my thoughts on the matter would be any better or worse at avoiding such. Probably worse, since I have conducted no study to inform myself on the subject (I don't think my minor library qualification counts, since we were taught to use catalogues, not judge them).

So, top-level categories in my personal 'this seems like a good idea to me' system:

Reference

This is something I think of as not really a subject area itself, but a shelving area which is handy to have. I think of 'reference' as a sort of mini-library containing works which are useful to have readily available for referring to. Important to have in most cases, but should be handled by whoever is organising the library it occurs in. That, I suppose is to an extent bowing to 'how people are accustomed to finding things organised' and maybe it would be better to do without a reference section? Maybe in some ways it is better suited to a personal library, where the person who owns it can decide which books ey finds useful to keep in arm's reach.

Knowledge and ideas

I don't know what to call this category, but my idea behind it is 'knowledge about things'. If you want to know how something works, this is the appropriate section. Subsections include things like astronomy, psychology, mechanical engineering, history, religion, law. To a fair degree it approximates what we refer to as 'non fiction', but is not equivalent to that category. I am uncertain if it would be appropriate to separate 'how to' into a separate category, but for consistency with my ideas elsewhere, have not attempted to do so.

Games, sports and recreation

This includes subjects like cricket, World of Warcraft, whist or Dungeons & Dragons. Activities performed for leisure, for entertainment, or competitively. I suspect this is also a place for guides and (non-academic) information on practical activities like cooking, caring for pets, gardening, or sex.

Creative and critical works

This includes subjects like painting, poetry, sculpture, music, essays, films and prose fiction. Criticism, analysis and instructive materials go along with the works they are about. I think biographical works go here, since the material is not necessarily 'fiction', but I could see a case for it going with history in the knowledge section.

That's it. That's the whole listing of my current ideas on how I would organise a shelving and classifying system. My own if no one else's.

I was also talking with Tess about how to solve the 'one location per book' problem, so perhaps there will be a post later with (probably very impractical) ideas on that.

I have said this before, although not here yet:

I think when we experience a desire to share music [or something else which may be the subject of a similar desire] with others this is often a proxy for a less commonly known or appreciated desire. I think what we often truly wish to share is the experience of the moment, the emotions that are being inspired in us. "I want to share this ecstasy, this joy, this wonder, this passion, this moment of empathy or grief or oneness [...] and the only way I know to even approach doing so is by sharing with you what is the immediate inspiration of my feelings."

Autism is often partly characterised as an extreme self-absorption, and my impression is this is considered some explanation for 'why autistic people are annoying to be around'. Of course I could not speak for everyone but that does not seem true to me. At least in that being so self-absorbed as to be uncaring of others or their feelings would suggest a low likelihood of sharing topical enthusiasm. The irritation to others would come from being unable to distinguish interest from disinterest in those being enthused to (something I have tried to learn). Also at least for me there are times when interest and enthusiasm overflow and I feel compelled to express it somehow - If I try not to I find myself moving to do it some minutes later anyway, without volition in my mental record. Since, thanks to the first thing I tend to feel guilty and end up apologising lots if I try sharing with people in person, even if I try to make sure they actually are interested and even if they actually are interested, this often results in prolific blogging and tweeting. Which I've missed over the past year or two but that's one of the costs of being liked, apparently maybe.

Which is possibly a bit off-track. This is more like two posts squashed together into one, the first expressing an opinion about what drives sharing of emotional inducers and the second saying roughly "The world is fantastic and wonderful and I love it and often write lots because I want to participate in this wonder and joy with other people and share / gain understanding back and forth". That's been said before, will be again. Sometimes get caught up in the urge to.

Bizarrely, my mother refuses to believe me that I am not watching Terminator 2: Judgement Day tonight because it is a bit of a tear-jerker and I don't feel like crying tonight.

Also, I want to start using these. This only reinforces my contention that our language could be far richer, or even possibly is far richer than common use would suggest.

For a few months now at least I have seen several people decrying the idea of 'thought crime', that some thoughts, desires, ideas, etc. are wrong in and of themselves, immoral and perhaps deserving of some sort of punishment even if they lead to know action.

It makes sense to me. A thought in itself harms no one, is not going to lead to harm unless acted on (or inacted on). There is no need to police or outlaw thoughts because people are free to think whatever they like; our only concern is to prevent people's rights from being infringed on by others.

Except... it seems that only makes sense under particular moral or ethical systems. If I value things like personal freedom and rights, protection from harm by others. There are other systems under which thoughts can be considered effectively criminal, even punished.

If I believed some thoughts were damaging to the person thinking them and that people ought to be protected from themselves, it might make sense to take some action against that person's will (frex: suicidal thoughts).

If I believed some thoughts had a corrosive effect on the morality and self-control of the person thinking them, and that it is right or imperative to act to prevent possible harm then the idea of wrong or bad thoughts which need to be controlled or cured will make sense to me. Examples: rape fantasies or paedophilia.

If I believe some thoughts constitute immoral acts in themselves I might think that is a matter of community or personal responsibility. Possibly something for the person to deal with emself but possibly it would be a matter for the community to respond to, perhaps attempting to condition the person away from those thoughts, prohibiting their exercise or otherwise attempting to persuade em eir mind is wrong and needs to change. Example:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So it can make a lot of sense to seek to control or restrict the minds of others to a moral end. Other religions like Buddhism also have a conception of thoughts as able to be right or wrong, although I think that is treated more definitely as a personal rather than a social matter.

It doesn't make sense if we are concerned only with whether a person's actions harm others or infringe on their rights, and not with that person's thoughts. If that is not the stance we begin with, however, I doubt it's assertion would do much to sway our opinion. It seems likely we would need to address instead the reasons for holding a particular perspective initially before attempting to persuade people to adopt a differing perspective, but ethical / moral persuasion remains a great mystery to me.

Pronouns. Those are fun, right? In English we have male and female, plus a whole assortment of others. For a long while I have considered drawing distinctions among those others and systematising their meaning for me - not intended to restrict how others use them, but to devise a system for my own use which would distinguish subtleties of identity.

As yet I have not actually done so. Some people I know have done something of the sort, however, and I have adopted it for my own personal use. Thus, being presented both here and also now.

he	him	his	boyfriend	sir	Mr. (Mister)
zie	zir	zir	personfriend	august	Per. (Goodperson)
ey	em	eir	personfriend	august	Per. (Goodperson)

The second row consists of pronouns used to address persons who do not identify as male or female, while the third row consists of pronouns used to address persons of unknown gender. This system has been internalised as correct to the extent that other uses of these words register to me as incorrect, so I try to remember it is not in widespread usage and thus not correct those who do otherwise.

I tend to want to further distinguish between entities of neutral or no gender and those with gender but not one which is male or female. If I were to do so, I would likely adopt the set ve / ver / vis for this purpose.

As always,
Your Arbiter of Reality,
Per. Fakename, Tyrant

Edit: On a personal note, I have applied all of these terms to myself, and generally prefer not to specify a preference (which... sort of just got phrased as a preference itself). I like that there are people who will address me by female pronouns without prompting and that there are people who do the same for zie. Most of the time I lean more to the female set than the male, having had enough of the latter in my life for the time being, but when making self-reference perform a quick internal check to see which is most applicable in the moment. Sometimes using ey because I do not know. So for me personally, any of these are good except that I tend to avoid the male set in most circumstances.

As a further note, I considered that the use of male as the baseline in that table could be sexist but finally decided to go with it rather than add the extra complication of Ms. / Miss. / Mrs. to the right-uppermost box. I do not like that titles for women are used to code marital status in a way that is not done with men.

Over the past few months I have been considering trying some sort of voice over IP option. Mainly, in hope that this would provide me greater freedom to stay in touch with people I know overseas, being able to call or be called by them more easily.

Currently I use Skype for voice contact and waver on whether there would be much benefit from using something else. Easier to actually make or receive calls, with less preparation, but I wonder if I would still be tied to the computer. I value the video contact Skype often provides, as voice input can make it nearly impossible for me to focus on anything else and video gives me something else to do with my eyes. Plus I just plain enjoy seeing my loves.

So far the two VOIP possibilities people have suggested to me are magicJack or Vonage. What I am trying to decide is whether it would be worthwhile for me to try a VOIP service. One of the biggest advantages suggested to me would be having a US number so that it might be possible to send or receive calls with people living there cheaply or free. Would people, frex, make use of this to contact me? Would I be able to make use of it for staying in touch with people or would they prefer other means? Or, anything else anyone things to mention or suggest, question mark.

It would take a while to set up if I do decide to, the first step being fixing things with my bank so that I would have a card actually usable for making payments online. Currently I cannot do that, which has admittedly made saving easier. Plenty of time to consider during the business of life.

Dear Greater Macrocosm,

A great majority of the persons with whom I am in correspondence exist in a separate 'time zone' to me; possibly they are phase-shifted from reality or from another planet, I can't be bothered sorting out all these finicky details. This causes any communication involving named days of the week to become wracked with ambiguity, and not any of the fun kinds.

Therefore, I am instituting the following reforms, effective immediately:

Illusory Day	Real Day	Unified Reference Scheme (URS) Day
Monday	Sunday	Smunday
Tuesday	Monday	Tuensday
Wednesday	Tuesday	Wuesday
Thursday	Wednesday	Thrensday
Friday	Thursday	Frursday
Saturday	Friday	Sriday
Sunday	Saturday	Sunturday

Your compliance is appreciated.

With flourish,
Summer Snow, Tyrant of the Seven Seas

P.S. Would someone mind telling me how long we have been having Tuesdays, and why I was not informed? It is as if there is a blank space in my mind which does not want to acknowledge their existence.

.won rof od ll'tahT !yaK

.noitcerid rehto eht ni ekam I srorre eht dna eseht neewteb ytiralimis eht morf trofmoc ward nac I tsael ta tub  ,tbuod on ,gnidaer-foorp retfa neve srorre fo ytnelp gnikam ,esruoc fo margorp a sa tnetepmoc sa t'nia I

.ereh elbaliava loot luatca na osla si erehT .noitcerid rehtie ni railimaf sa ylraen sdrow nommoc ynam edam sah enim fo tibah siht taht spleh tI .erofeb deah ym ni secnetnes elgnis naht erom enod reven evah I neht tub ,sdrawrof gnisopmoc sa ysae sa ton llitS .sredo rettel tuoba kniht naht sdrawkcab etirw lypmis ot reisae gnimoceb ti won tub tsrif ta tluciffid etiuq saw tI .tfel-ot-thgir em saib ot rotide sight fo ycnednet eht rof edam secnawolla - sdrawkcab lla gnihtemos elttil a gnitirw ta dnah ym yrt d'I thguoht I os ,daer I tsop a ot stnemmoc eht yb dnim ot kcab thguorb saw sihT

.ddo smees dnuos a hcatta ot tpmetta ton dna drow a esrever ot, deednI .os meht gnicnuonorp dna sdrow gnisrever fo tibah a evah I

I am very pleased with the Keramik theme for KDE. Should have changed it sooner.

Although I removed the communities filter from my Morning Coffee reading list I still find myself not having the time to do things that need doing. It seems like most of my time currently is being taken up with talking to people and reading personal journals. The people I talk to are wonderful and I would happily converse with them until one or both of us dropped from exhaustion; unfortunately I am not good at multitasking. ~4 conversations and reading is about as much as I can handle without neglecting someone and with even one person it becomes much more difficult to do anything else.

Right now I want to make a terrible analogy and say it is like I am a quantum entity. If someone observes me by having a conversation with me I am collapsed into a particular form. Each person observes something different but none of them are what I am when no one is around (I wonder what I am when I am not around?), which is not necessarily bad. Possibly I sometimes need focusing and definitely people help with many things.

I think it is not the fault of other people that I have difficulty doing anything else when they are available. I think it is possible for me to have both conversation and productive activity and I think I need to learn how. It is also possible that attempting to understand people and formulate responses to them takes up so much of my brainpower there is not capacity for anything else of significance. Or it could be as simple as nothing else being sufficiently compelling recently. I should perhaps withdraw and take time to contemplate this.

Memo to self: resume efforts at efficient communication and composition.

Things I intended to get back to:

1. The article I read at Encarta whilst undertaking my examination concerned the subject of men in professions dominated by women and do they face glass ceilings? I never did go back to it for further study. I'm not sure what they gained by specifically interviewing men who were successful in those careers. I do think I remember a teacher in one of my classes saying something which made me think there were more men in upper-level positions in the library industry (relative to their proportion within the industry as a whole)
2. Probably in relation to this post, I meant to return to the matter of the donut and say that, since I could well decide in the future that it is not moral to eat meat I should refrain from purchasing any for myself. Unfortunately I have since broken this resolution on one occasion, but I have not abandoned it. Though it does make me look at shop food with longing (fortunately I am more tempted by baked foods)
3. The other things can wait, probably meriting a full post

I maintain that I wish to be a writer. Insofar as I write stories I suppose I could claim that title, except I would not feel right about it unless someone had paid me to publish a thing I had written. Once I reach that point, then I can find some other reason to not feel comfortable claiming that title [insert canned laughter here]. This paragraph is aiming at the point that, if I become a successful writer there is a good chance of people subscribing to this journal who are fans and not friends. There are some things I want to be open with and others I wish to keep private and I am not yet settled on what things fall into which category. Recently I have been erring on the side of keeping too many things locked down and would like to change that. A shift in policy had crept up on me until nearly nothing was left public.

My mouse problems seem confined to Vista. It does not work unless I adjust the plug and was not responding immediately before I switched to Kubuntu. It is working fine now without adjustment.