![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
High today, here: 8. Dewpoint then: 2. High dewpoint: 3.
High today in TO: 10. Dewpont then: 2. High dewpoint: 3.
Low today on the balcony: 3.7. High: 7.9. Currently: 4.3.
High yesterday, here: 7. Dewpoint then: 3. High dewpoint: 3.
High yesterday in TO: 9. Dewpoint then: 1. High dewpoint: 5.
The worm is about to turn. Early summer is due to arrive on Wednesday--just in time for Congress. I always hope the weather will be nice when people are coming, so they don't get the wrong idea. The weather was not nice for the Gay Barbecue, so I fear people may have gotten the wrong idea. (The idea of people getting the wrong idea about the weather always makes me think of the propagandists for Queen's who came to my highschool and told us that it never snows in Kingston, only rains. They said that, I presume, because, in their one winter there, it never snowed, only rained. My first winter in Kingston, it never stopped snowing.)
Congress, incidentally, received its obligatory beating from the National Post today, syndicated on politicaltheory.info. The worst it could come up with was a paper on "doorology". Fortunately, the writer somehow missed the "humanities" part, which might perhaps explain why the peeing paper went unmocked.
Meanwhile, courtesy aldaily, I learned that the book about the importance of sports which I've been meaning to write someday has just come out. Ah well: now there's a Literature, to which to Contribute. (And aesthetics, after all, are only one part of it.)
Also down the pipe from aldaily, Appiah's argument against anti-homogenization, which misses the semantic point in an aggravating way: he points to instances of cultural mixing as evidence against the thesis that globalization homogenizes, but look, you get homogeneity by mixing things together! This article reminds me, again, of the paradox of multiculturalism: you only get a multi-culture if there are prior mono-cultures. If every place is multicultural, then no place can be multicultural. The problem is, people tend to think that any good argument for a multicultural Canada must also be a good argument for a multicultural France, or Israel, or wherever--it must be a good argument for multiculturalism in general. (Although I suspect it's probably only "dominant" cultures that are expected to be multi-.)
Not that that has much in particular to do with Appiah's piece, the gist of which is, if people want to give up their local traditions and wear baseball caps and live until they're 80, who's anybody to tell them they can't? Well, nobody, sure, but that doesn't seem like the most important problem.
High today in TO: 10. Dewpont then: 2. High dewpoint: 3.
Low today on the balcony: 3.7. High: 7.9. Currently: 4.3.
High yesterday, here: 7. Dewpoint then: 3. High dewpoint: 3.
High yesterday in TO: 9. Dewpoint then: 1. High dewpoint: 5.
The worm is about to turn. Early summer is due to arrive on Wednesday--just in time for Congress. I always hope the weather will be nice when people are coming, so they don't get the wrong idea. The weather was not nice for the Gay Barbecue, so I fear people may have gotten the wrong idea. (The idea of people getting the wrong idea about the weather always makes me think of the propagandists for Queen's who came to my highschool and told us that it never snows in Kingston, only rains. They said that, I presume, because, in their one winter there, it never snowed, only rained. My first winter in Kingston, it never stopped snowing.)
Congress, incidentally, received its obligatory beating from the National Post today, syndicated on politicaltheory.info. The worst it could come up with was a paper on "doorology". Fortunately, the writer somehow missed the "humanities" part, which might perhaps explain why the peeing paper went unmocked.
Meanwhile, courtesy aldaily, I learned that the book about the importance of sports which I've been meaning to write someday has just come out. Ah well: now there's a Literature, to which to Contribute. (And aesthetics, after all, are only one part of it.)
Also down the pipe from aldaily, Appiah's argument against anti-homogenization, which misses the semantic point in an aggravating way: he points to instances of cultural mixing as evidence against the thesis that globalization homogenizes, but look, you get homogeneity by mixing things together! This article reminds me, again, of the paradox of multiculturalism: you only get a multi-culture if there are prior mono-cultures. If every place is multicultural, then no place can be multicultural. The problem is, people tend to think that any good argument for a multicultural Canada must also be a good argument for a multicultural France, or Israel, or wherever--it must be a good argument for multiculturalism in general. (Although I suspect it's probably only "dominant" cultures that are expected to be multi-.)
Not that that has much in particular to do with Appiah's piece, the gist of which is, if people want to give up their local traditions and wear baseball caps and live until they're 80, who's anybody to tell them they can't? Well, nobody, sure, but that doesn't seem like the most important problem.
