Summer Reading List!

Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:17 am

Buttonsmith wrote:

That was me.

Just to justify a 2nd post, I'm reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. I ripped off my business name from his book, so I figured I'd better read it at some point.

That would make your bussiness name: Gene Selfish?

Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:07 am

Or perhaps MemeCo Buttons.

Just a guess.

Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:39 am

I already guessed that, but I couldn't resist to make that lame joke.

Joined: 16 Nov 2004 Posts: 154 Location: Fredericton, NB

You could have. You didn't. Don't blame your genes.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.

And thus was born the meme (rhymes with theme and dream), which has gone on to amuse grad student and internet geek alike for lo these many years. There are some memetic terms and definitions here.

Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:40 pm

kundor wrote:

Spontaneous generation? You should run ad-aware or something Intranet because I fail to see how spontaneous generation is assumed by the selfish gene paradigm. If anything, spontaneous generation would disprove the selfish gene paradigm because it would disable the workings of evolution!

Intranet, your sheltered and firewalled existence has led to your naive and foolish beliefs compared to the battered but wise Internet, that is what I think.

OOC: Sorry, most posts on OT matters are generated via googling random words from previous posts and the page ads, and then posting based on the third (real) result on the fifth page. That one was a little off kilter. Hence flame war comments, as I knew someone would mention that. Most flames are generated through computer programs. /OOC

YOUR MOM IS BATTERED! AND FOOLISH!

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:09 am

kundor wrote:

Silly? To the contrary! It is a fundamental truth, and until one fully grasps it ey cannot really understand the world around em!

We are nothing but vessels for genes which do not know or care anything about us or the world around us. All they "know" (excuse the anthropomorphic terminology) is that changing in one way makes them more prevalent and the other way makes them less so; the protein-construction that creates cells from these blueprints is a mere side effect; every creature and plant and behaviour and our entire civilization are side effects of the dominance games of these uncaring genes.

Actually, I'm hesitant to embrace it completely because it ignores culture. Sure, our genes influence behavior, but they don't dictate it.
Also, it doesn't really make sense that the genes would choose--they're simply selected for or against and become more prevalent based on how often they're chosen. Certainly, they have to have some essential order to survive or they wouldn't. But this whole gene determinism thing seems like a crappy attempt to explain why life exists: Because the genes want to? Um. I suppose that's about as viable as anything else one might come up with.
Does he explain why the genes have this drive in the first place?

Malinowski already tried bio determinism (in a slightly different incarnation) and was shot down. Besides being inept, that theory just leads to nasty things!

Sure, I can see where they're going with it...I just think that culture is too complex to reduce to genes. Just think how ridiculous humans are in that game--religion, language, etc.--all that developed just to make more genes? Or perhaps we got bored?

I definitely think there's a logical explanation out there, don't get me wrong. I just have yet to see it.

Apologies if I've mistaken the premise. We only read portions of the book in Ecology, but spent a lot of time discussing the ideas. This is in response to what Kundor and Buttonsmith have said, and to those lectures.

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:46 pm

Genes, of course, don't really have "drive" or make choices. It just so happens that the gene sequence which triggers protein creation which results in a more effective animal becomes a more common gene sequence. Gene sequences which result in ineffective animals rapidly disappear. So although genes are completely inert, the ones that spread more quickly -- spread more quickly. So there are more of them.

The anthropomorphic terminology is just a convenient shorthand for all of that, because it works well.

Joined: 07 Jun 2005 Posts: 55 Location: hoodstock, Georgia

this summer, I picked some books to read as part of my goal to become well read.

Catcher in the Rye
Crime and Punishment
The Fountainhead
Clockwork Orange

yessss
so far I'm like five chapters into Catcher in the Rye and I like it except for how he says "good-by" and "goddam" and calls everyone old. it's good though.

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:38 pm

kundor wrote:

Genes, of course, don't really have "drive" or make choices. It just so happens that the gene sequence which triggers protein creation which results in a more effective animal becomes a more common gene sequence. Gene sequences which result in ineffective animals rapidly disappear. So although genes are completely inert, the ones that spread more quickly -- spread more quickly. So there are more of them.

The anthropomorphic terminology is just a convenient shorthand for all of that, because it works well.

Well, that makes a bit more sense then. I looked it up on Amazon, as I should have done first, and I guess I just always assumed that was common knowledge--that it's the genes propogating and not the species using the genes to propogate...I don't like the whole anthropomorphic shtick, though. I remember being extremely irritated with it in that class.

I still don't buy into complete gene determinism--not sure if that's what he's after. It seems like that new last chapter suggests it, from what I can see in the editorial review.
Perhaps I should just check it out when I get home.

For science reading, I really love Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man. It's has a bit about physical evolution, but focuses on the evolution of science and technology over human history, and the issues therein. Some of it is a bit dated, but I found it to be quite valuable in the formation of my interests and morality.

Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 776 Location: Victoria

joshyface wrote:

this summer, I picked some books to read as part of my goal to become well read.

Catcher in the Rye
Crime and Punishment
The Fountainhead
Clockwork Orange

yessss
so far I'm like five chapters into Catcher in the Rye and I like it except for how he says "good-by" and "goddam" and calls everyone old. it's good though.

Catcher and Clockwork are both incredible books, and the latter is unbelievably superior to the movie. (This sounds like hyperbole, but I really think it's true.) I haven't read the middle two, but I don't see how you can go wrong with Dostoevsky. Unless you don't like eight page monologues, which would be understandable.

Who wrote The Fountainhead?

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:38 pm

Kicking the Sacred Cow

Awesome book. Read it. If you don't, you will die.

You'll still die even if you do, but at least you'll feel better about yourself.

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:36 pm

DeathInABottle wrote:

Who wrote The Fountainhead?

Ayn Rand.

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:13 pm

I think Klaw meant "YOUR MOM".

Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 776 Location: Victoria

Mom, you've CHANGED!

Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 1442

Look at me, i'm a guy who disregards previous posts, but expects you to take the time to consider mine!

Books that read good an that:

The Dark Tower series - Stephen King
Possibly the best series i've ever read, and very much life-altering, if you get into them. I'll never hear Hey Jude the same way again.

Basically a crazy Sci-fantasy epic Western. Roland Deschain: CORE. starts with The Gunslinger. A lot of people find Gunslinger to be ok at best, but say the series starts flying at book two The Drawing of the Three. Personally I think Gunslinger rocks the box factory.

The Stand - Stephen King
Yeah, i've been on a King trip at the moment. Usually cited as his best work, this is a long tale about life post-super virus for a small band of Americans. Did I mention the devil-incarnate who is building an army of miscreants in Vegas? I'm pretty sure I did.

Fun fact: This book, as with most his others, ties in with the Dark Tower series. It's one huge freakin' puzzle with King's books.

Starship Troopers - Robert Heinlein
Nothing like the movie (which I thought kicked mega ass). More a work on the moral and philosophical journey of John Rico, a soldier in a facist society. Very good, and fairly small.

Battlefield Earth - L. Ron Hubbard
I never saw the film, so no comment on that front. This was a pretty interesting sci-fi, set in a distant future where man is all but extinct. Excusing some dubious naming conventions (Johnnie Goodboy Tyler? Psychlos?) and the occasional dragging section of mining detail or battle report, I thought this was pretty good. And I totally missed any underlying Scientology propaganda.

Stasiland - Anna Funder
This is first on my list for when i've dealt with The Stand (it's freakin' Lord of the Rings size!). A collection of researched stories about the east German secret service and their assorted wacky antics.

Comes highly recommended by my friend Michael, and also the cute girl in the book store (I totally could've gotten her number). And it won some awards too. AWARDS.

Joined: 16 Nov 2004 Posts: 154 Location: Fredericton, NB

shana wrote:

Well, that makes a bit more sense then. I looked it up on Amazon, as I should have done first, and I guess I just always assumed that was common knowledge--that it's the genes propogating and not the species using the genes to propogate...I don't like the whole anthropomorphic shtick, though. I remember being extremely irritated with it in that class.

I still don't buy into complete gene determinism--not sure if that's what he's after. It seems like that new last chapter suggests it, from what I can see in the editorial review.
Perhaps I should just check it out when I get home.

Agreed. Dawkins is up front about his rampant anthropomorphism (every now and then he'll try to remind you he's only speaking figuratively), but it gets so heavy-handed that he should be making a disclaimer every other paragraph. Also, too much anecdotal evidence along with too many hypothetical 'what-ifs'. I skipped to the last chapter, wherein he touches upon the issue of human culture.

Dawkins doesn't exactly argue for gene determinism. He argues that evolution through natural selection takes place at the genetic level, and our genes are therefore motivated by self-interest (or selfishness). Every (hypothetical) situation he describes is a cost-benefit analysis in which an animal will always choose the course best for his/her genes. It comes off like determinism only if you take this model of behaviour as actual reality.

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:03 pm

Welshy wrote:

The Dark Tower series - Stephen King
Possibly the best series i've ever read, and very much life-altering, if you get into them. I'll never hear Hey Jude the same way again.

I started reading Black House before I understood it was not only a sequel, but connected to the Dark Tower series! Also, it sucked!

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:13 pm

The High House series is also good too.

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:38 pm

The Crack House series is pretty good, but it's nothing compared to the Whore House series.

I guess the Out House series is OK too.

Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 1442

Eidam wrote:

Welshy wrote:

The Dark Tower series - Stephen King
Possibly the best series i've ever read, and very much life-altering, if you get into them. I'll never hear Hey Jude the same way again.

I started reading Black House before I understood it was not only a sequel, but connected to the Dark Tower series! Also, it sucked!

I much preferred the Talisman, but both of them were pretty slow starting. Not his best work.

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:20 am

I agree!

The only book of Stephen's I can say I enjoyed was About a Buick, and not that much!

Timefishblue wrote:

The Crack House series is pretty good, but it's nothing compared to the Whore House series.

I guess the Out House series is OK too.

Man, you should really take a gander at House Party! That was his best work.

The depth of main characters like Play or Kid was nothing compared to humanity Pee Wee and Bilal had. This book just captured the essence of living in just a few phrases. It's art.

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:05 pm

The only book I plan to read over the summer is The Dancing Wu Li Masters I should probably have some more!

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:09 pm

Mig Pilot was a good, non-fiction escape-from-communist-Russia story. I suspece Tom Clancy used it partly as a source for "The Hunt For Red October"

And keeping with the trend:
The House of Seven Gables

Joined: 05 May 2005 Posts: 37 Location: Thule Airbase

Stephen King is an insult to literaure.

Joined: 03 Apr 2005 Posts: 3863 Location: Utah and/or Texas

Wow, you made it your signature, even!

Joined: 05 May 2005 Posts: 37 Location: Thule Airbase

It was my signature from day 1!

Joined: 03 Apr 2005 Posts: 3863 Location: Utah and/or Texas

Oh, sorry!

My creative writing teacher loves Stephen King. She also likes my stories. What does this say about my writing? Apparently not good things!

Of course in all fairness, my writing isn't a thing like King's.

Joined: 05 May 2005 Posts: 37 Location: Thule Airbase

I think the time has come to tell your teacher that all of her previous life have been based on a lie, and that she should abandon her decadent lifestyle. I think the time has come for you to tell her that Stephen King IS THE SHITTIEST WRITER EVER.

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:32 pm

Eidam wrote:

I agree!

The only book of Stephen's I can say I enjoyed was About a Buick, and not that much!

Yeah, but you haven't even read like any of his well-known ones.

Spudgun wrote:

Stephen King IS THE SHITTIEST WRITER EVER.

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. He is certainly not the best, but there are many, many far worse writers.

SORRY BUT SIG OR NOT YOU ARE WRONG

Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 889 Location: The Yay Area

Ugh battlefield earth.... overblown and crappy its like 1050 pages long. Even if I didn't hate scientology I would hate that book.
Also spud gun until you give me a reason to dislike stephen king besides that he is "shitty" I'm not going to be convinced.