The Total Experience, part 2

You may wonder what I mean by the idea of culture itself becoming an anachronism. I don't have a clear definition of culture, but I can provide some examples. We no longer have to draw or paint because we have photography. We no longer have to read music and play the piano or sing together because we have recorded music. We no longer have to wear real clothing because we have polyester (oh, wait. We tried that in the 70s and we learned we didn't like it. Let's not make that mistake again.) We no longer have to paint our houses because we have tacky-looking vinyl substitute siding that can be spotted a mile away to save us the hassle. We no longer have to walk on our sidewalks from one place of business to another because we would rather drive anyway, damn the consequences.

A bit discursive, but I think you get my point. When something becomes a luxury and no longer a necessity, does its virtual substitute meet the neet it once met? Or is a new need created when we realize something intangible is missing? It is something I cannot define, but I know it when I see it. The interior designer who came to my sister's new house recently was drawn instantly to the hand-crafted statuettes and bookends I purchased for her from the fair trade store (where I do nearly all of my Christmas shopping). What was different about them? Whatever it was, she could tell right away. I mean, you can buy mass-produced knicknkack thingys at Mal-wart that look just like them and were manufactured in Chinese sweatshops, but why am I not drawn to them in the same way? How come we can so quickly tell the difference? Why should it matter?

It has to do with what I call a total experience. A total experience involves all of the senses and all of the dimensions of existence, not just one. A total experience meets more than basic needs, but self-actualization needs as well. A total experience invites imagination, sparks ideas, brings back memories, calls us to dream of possibilities. A total experience calls for celebration, makes us want to whistle or sing or paint a picture or write a poem or a play or a story. A total experience is what I have when I take a walk through a forest or a historic neighborhood and used to have almost everywhere else but no longer can. A total experience reminds us of the ends, not just the means. The means call for us to be practical. The means are necessary. The ends may not be imminently practical, but they may be every bit as called for. Let's not lose sight of them and get lost in the shuffle of struggling in the muck and the mire of the means.

Everything we do we do for an experience. We express negatively when we our expectations are thwarted and have to learn to live without expecting anything. Ironically, happiness seems to find the people who aren't trying to find it. We don't always know how to define the experiences we seek, but we know very well that there can be no substitutes.

Hugging is one of the ultimate total experiences. It is fleeting, like all experiences. It has no meaning beyond itself. It involves many senses and dimensions of our being. It is many experiences at once. Above all, it is shared experience. And it requires our total presence and participation. It allows no substitutes. The best way to live, I am told, is to participate in your experience and experience your participation.

So I honor my experiences, even (or especially) when they don't make sense. I forget that I "should" just "get used to" the growing ticky-tackiness of the scenery around me and recognize it when something valuable seems to be disappearing even if words to describe it escape me. Someone recently told me that, in his opinion, vinyl siding is "soulless". Well, I guess "soul" is as good a word as any.

One thing I do know, however, is that the statuettes and figurines that were handcrafted in so-called "developing" countries that I purchase for the members of my family are the things that will get passed down to the next generations, not the computer tables and TV sets and other ephemeral and purely "practical" paraphernalia we now keep around the house. They are not "useful" or "practical". But they live and breathe with us. They have soul. We can look upon them and have a total experience. And that is an end in itself.

The Total Experience

Technology doesn't solve problems. You and I know that. Oh, it answers questions. It solves puzzles. It enables us to do things we've not been able to do before. And that can assist us in our problem-solving. That's for sure. But it doesn't solve problems. It just changes the way we handle them. And it changes the nature of the problems. Take counterfeiting, for example. Thanks to sophisticated technology, it has become necessary to keep one step ahead of counterfeiters by almost continually changing the designs on our currency. We invent something, someone finds a way to use it to our disadvantage, and we then have to invent something to counter it. It's been happening that way as far back as we have records. A quick look at the history of weaponry will show that very pattern.

This is a subject that has been on my mind for some time, as you can tell if you've followed my rantings here. This latest ranting was sparked by a silent movie from the 1920s I watched last night. In observing the clothing and style, the architecture, the mannerisms of the people in the movie, I began to picture myself in a theatre, taking in the total experience of watching movie in 1924. The voices of people around me, the smell of cigar smoke wafting in from the lobby, the grand architecture of the movie palace, the fancy designs on the seats, the incredible background music, the sidewalk in front of the theatre, the dress and hairstyles of the people greeting each other on that sidewalk, the elegant style of their greetings. What looks to me like exaggerated gesticulation must have been looked at differently in 1924. But the most fascinating thought of all was the fact that the movie industry went on like that for over three decades. Three decades!!! How much sooner could they have invented sound if all of the effort put into building and designing the movie palaces, composing the background music, training actors in gesticulation, etc., went instead to finding a solution to the fact that they didn't have sound, what seems to us a perfectly necessary ingredient in a movie!?!!! How could they stand having that kind of incompleteness for so long?!?

Well, we've learned from the experience. We don't wait that long anymore before inventing things. In fact, we invent things like our jobs depend on it (and all too often, it seems they do). When it seems financially feasible, we construct big-box theatres made of the cheapest ticky-tacky we can find as quickly as possible. And when something different becomes more financially feasible, we raze the theatre and put up a new ticky-tacky big box retailer in its place (but not without enlarging the parking lot and adding room for a few more new businesses, making it all the more necessary that we drive to them instead of walking, the sidewalks we put around it only to be used by people whose car just broke down in the vicinity).

The lack of sound in movies made art, craft, and culture into a necessity. When certain things are no longer necessary, they become anachronisms. So what happens when culture itself becomes an anachronism? We have to choose it. To be continued....

Developmental Biology

Here was the question: Do you have a dictionary of terms in developmental biology?

Well, I needed more information so I could assess the situation and see which of our sources, if any, would be of some assistance.

She was taking a class in developmental biology at Ferris State (Biology 370), and she had a list of terms she had to define. Her textbook had no glossary (or index, so she claimed), and Webster’s was of no help and neither was a medical dictionary she consulted. When I asked if she had checked our science dictionaries, she told me she wasn’t very familiar with our collection. So I took her over to the area. After looking some of the terms up in a couple of reference books without success, we came across the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms. A satisfactory definition was given for the first three terms, and she was off with the book complete her assignment.

Further investigation revealed that we have The Facts on File Dictionary of Biology, a source with longer, less technical definitions. She was grateful for it as well, since there were terms the other dictionary didn't cover.

The Future of the Renaissance

I have long ago stopped predicting the future. It is possible to spot trends and see where they will lead if nothing else changes, but something else always changes and acts upon those trends which then slow, reverse themselves, or find completely new directions to move in that no one could have forseen. That is, of course, because so many things are always happening at the same time that keep anything from flowing in a predictable straight line. That approach seems to me more realistic than outright pessimism or optimism. (Besides, I cannot afford to be a pessimist.)

This entry is in response to John N. Berry's article in Library Journal, "The Vanishing Librarian." http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6529375.html Librarians the web over are commenting on it for good or for ill, and I add my own strong reaction. Anyone familiar with my blog will know better than to tell me to simply get with the times. I covered that line in an earlier entry. Change just is, and just because you are smart enough to know that a change is in the wind doesn't mean you automatically have the knowledge that that change is for the best. And no, I'm not talking about turning back the clock. Continuing education is always on my agenda. It isn't always easy to know exactly how to prioritize the things I need to learn in order to function in this new world of astonishing technology, but I am keeping up as best I know how. The fact that I am maintaining this blog is evidence of that. Like change is just change, technology is just technology. It is an enabler. We can choose to be really smart and knowledgeable and superciliously sophisticated and say, "We gotta use it now! And anyone who is having trouble with it better just git over it and start usin' it, buster, 'else you're gonna git left behind in the mad rush to git where we're all goin'." I rather enjoy taking that attitude myself after I've just learned a new technology, like blogging. I'm not up to taking it with RSS feeds, online image generators, LibraryThing, Technorati, Social Networking and other online tools yet, but the day will come soon because I'm working at it.

No, it's not technology I'm complaining about. It's another kind of trend. It's the trend that assumes that if you can do something because it makes life easier for one person for a short time, you should do it regardless of the consequences. If we can save money by paying people less, let's do it. If we can be more efficient by hiring less knowledgeable employees, let's do it. If people are satisfied when they come into the library, thinking that they can find any piece of information they want with google or wikipedia, let them think that, especially if the "librarians" you've hired don't know any better, either. (And don't for a minute think I am dismissing the brilliance of many well-rounded and well-educated reference librarians who merely lack the benefit of an MLS. I'm talking about hiring Joe Blow off the street whose main qualifications are that he can count to two and sign his name "because people only ask directional questions anymore, anyway.") If a dumbed-down society of knuckleheaded klutzes makes for efficiency and profit, let's have it.

Now, that sort of thing appeals to some people, and I'll let them have their preferences, although I think their tastes are dull and bland and insensitive, and Renaissance Man will fight to the death to keep the dark ages from returning. (After I'm dead, I won't care anymore and you'll have to fight your own battles.) Many of those people to whom the dark ages have appeal as the next new, mod, "in" thing will say I am critical of capitalism. Let me remind them that today's public libraries are the result of Andrew Carnegie's dream. He supported and funded libraries because he loved learning for its own sake, and not merely for the sake of profit and efficiency. He didn't spend his leisure time reading about business cycles and economic forecasting to advance his career. He was interested in history, poetry, literature, philosophy, astronomy, theology. He made his fortune so he could retire early and travel in Europe and associate with the greatest minds of his day and learn for the sheer joy and fulfillment it brought him. His aim was to live life to the fullest, and, believing it a sin to die rich, gave an entire nation an abundant number of public libraries in order that all Americans could enjoy what he had to struggle for in his youth. Last time I checked, Bill Gates had similar values.

So yes, we have to keep up with technology. Its flow is out of our hands. We can only learn to swim in that new world. But the kind of world we will live in as human beings, the way people treat one another, the values we place on human relations and learning and joyful and abundant living, is not a foregone conclusion. Technology does not and cannot make those decisions for us. We will make those decisions or we will allow someone less scrupulous than we are to make them for us. And those are decisions no one is exempt from. "But," someone argues, "how can everyone make those decisions when everyone isn't knowledgeable enough?" If you value your public libraries and the knowledge your public librarians have to offer, you won't have to ask that question.

Ric's

Someone reminded me today that the convenience of e-mail, message boards, chatrooms, etc. cannot replace the delights associated with letters received via snail mail. When things become unnecessary, they may still retain value, albeit for different reasons. Photography has been invented, but people still paint. Film technology is out now, but stages are still in use. An example I was reminded of just a second ago was camping. Someone just pointed out a brochure touting wi-fi availability at campgrounds. Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of campgrounds?

Similarly, some things are possible but should simply not be done. The mass-produced printout in lieu of a hand-written thank-you note I once received from a high school graduate was not a proper substitute, in my opinion, for the personal note requiring a bit of otherwise unnecessary effort in order to provide the necessary value. Self-checkout lanes at supermarkets are another.

I can hear the old canard now. "Change is good! Get used to it!" Change isn't good or bad. Change is just change. That line has proven useful, however, since I was a child and the "now generation" proclaimed the inevitable emergence of a society in which people took better care of themselves and each other, and it was something the elder generation was going to have to get used to. But someone out there wants us to think it's the same thing in this case. It's not, nor is it all that hard to illustrate. Imagine two change scenarios: a world in which everyone, for a change, smiles and greets every passing stranger - now that would be a change. OK, now imagine a world in which everyone took up smoking and went around seeing how many strangers' faces they could blow smoke into. That too would be a change. Which would you prefer? "Either one, because change is good?" That doesn't make sense, does it?

I'm all for change, all right. Positive change. Improvement. Progress. Self-checkout lanes are not positive for anyone but the retailer's bottom line. It doesn't help cashiers. It puts customers to work. A retailer once defended self-checkout lanes by saying that customers would get used to them and like them. Not me. Then they mentioned that "actually" they would end up hiring more cashiers. Now what sense does that make? The machines and the new cashiers they make inevitable (without saying how) will only cost more money (in this cost-cutting age!). Finally, they argued that 67% of their customers were using them. Well, I thought, get rid of the human cashiers and 100% of their customers will use them. But I won't be one of them.

One way to beat the trend is to shop at supermarkets that don't have self-checkout lanes and help keep them in business. At first I thought I would find only a few surviving hangers-on from a bygone era. But then I saw an article in the paper about a "traditional" supermarket opening up in the area, one whose selling points included NOT having self-checkout lanes. (What are we doing? Going backwards? Regressing? Refusing to face inevitable change toward an impersonal, mechanized world of lonely strangers without jobs?) Well, apparently people want it or it wouldn't be a selling point. And Ric's on the corner of Belding Road and Myers Lake in Rockford, Michigan is a NEW option for those who wish to go that route. Old-fashioned or not, I like the experience of being fawned over by a half-dozen friendly employees when I walk in the door. Technologically unnecessary though they may be, I find cashiers valuable not because they are necessary in order for me to pay. (What are people going to do if technology renders all jobs obsolete? It may seem like an exaggeration, but these days one can't be too sure.) If I have to explain to you why I find cashiers valuable, you need read no further. But if you are in sympathy with anything I have said, you might stop in at Ric's some time and take in the experience. I think you'll like it.

For Librarians Only

I'm sure by now you have seen my picture on this blog. (I've also added a few to my flickr site.) Slowly but surely, merely by reading instructions online, I continue to grow into both my profession and the world as it currently is and is becoming. (The implications are a bit disconcerting to someone in mid-life crisis like myself. Forced by circumstances to become hep, mod, groovy, and up-to-date, face-to-face contact is becoming so pre-21st century. Hey, the times they are a-changin', man. Location and proximity don't mean a thing anymore. Customs, cultures, traditions and distinctions of locale are doomed to become mere anthropological curiosities. Humans are no longer evolving in the direction of all that lovey-dovey, 60s-70s, human-rights, United Nations nonsense. We're evolving into machines. Personalism is dead, man! Oh, goody.) Let's just say I stopped by the site of my old library school http://www.si.umich.edu/ and discovered that the curriculum, except for one course, is of a completely different nature than when I was in school a mere twenty years ago. (What will another twenty years bring?) How will we ever keep up?

Fortunately, there is a solution! Library Success: A Best-Practices wiki. http://www.libsuccess.org/index.php?title=Main_Page Need to know the latest in collection development? What librarians need to know about Web 2.0, Library 2.0, all the other 2.0s? The latest in reader's advisory? How to market your library (which is more important than ever in today's economy)? Where to get training? How to train staff? Where to find jobs? What the latest trends are? How to be a 21st century librarian overall? What they're teaching in library schools these days? Look no further. Your one-stop shopping site is here, and boy am I glad I found it! Now we can all stay on top of the trends, no matter how old we are! (Now that, on top of being cool, is encouraging!)

A woman walks into a library...

...and she sees this really cool chart on the history room door. She comes to the desk and asks if she can have a copy of it. You notice that it is stuck on the door pretty good, and that you might not get it off without tearing it. You have no idea where it came from other than the fact that Mike found it somewhere in the building one day and decided it would do more good hanging up where someone could see it than hidden away in the back room. The poster has no statement of responsibility, address, or copyright statement of any sort anywhere. You just say "Nope," Right? Fortunately, this true story ended happily. A little conversation can go a long way in a reference interview. After chatting for a moment or two, she revealed that she only thought it would be nice to have the chart because it provided some good information on a line in her husband's background. I suggested that in that case she might be interested in looking through The Mammoth Book of British Kings & Queens. R 941.0099 MAM



There were lots of charts in that book that she could copy. It turned out to be exactly the kind of information she was looking for and more.



Every librarian should be familiar with it. It truly is, as its introduction claims, "the most complete record of the kings and queens of Britain ever compiled." Almost a thousand rulers are covered, covering not only England, Scotland and Wales, but also the earlier kingdoms that made up those areas in the early middle ages before they were conquered and consolidated. There are lists of rulers for Northern and Southern Powys in what is now Wales, in addition to Deheubarth, Gwynedd, Seisyllwg, Dyfed and Demetia. England grew out of Mercia, East Angliam, Essex, Kent, Wessex, Kernow (Cornwall), Dumnonia, and other small kingdoms. Scotland came out of Alba, Strathclyde, Caledonia, Fortriu, etc. And prior to the early middle ages the island was part of the Roman Empire for a few hundred years. Prior to that there were two dozen kingdoms on the island. All of the rulers of all of those kingdoms, some historical and some legendary or semi-legendary, are covered in this volume. And all of them are tied together in 57 genealogical charts. But that's not all. The legendary rulers in Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain (which we also own) are listed here as well, including the line of King Arthur. (Just who was King Arthur, anyway? Check this book for some in-depth speculation.) Also listed are the rulers of France, Brittany, Aquitaine, Anjou, Normandy, Dublin, Denmark, Norway, Hanover, and the High Kings of Ireland, all of whom had connections, genealogical and otherwise, with the British royal family. So dig in. If you ever get a similar question, you will now be aware of the perfect gateway to further information.