The Importance of Documentation

Hi!

Busy weekend. Wordstock. Reading. I SHOOK TIMOTHY ZAHN’S HAND.

But I’m not going to talk about that. I’m going to save that for another post, for a time when I’m not prepping for a couple of job interviews. No, today I’m going to talk about a lynchpin of coding:

Documentation.

Specifically – and this is going to be brief – the importance of not just screwing around with variables in hashes and arrays in Ruby. See, I’m refreshing my memory on this thing (and learning some new stuff!) by going through the courses on Codecadamy. I’ve been doing this with JavaScript, but I’ve decided that I like Ruby better. Possibly because it’s my birthstone. I think. (That’s what it is for July, right?)

So, I’m going through the lessons, and one of them – sorting the frequencies of inputted words by using a hash – plays pretty fast and loose with variables. Now, it’s made it clear that variables, at least when you’re slapping them between “| |” are just placeholders. I get that. The tricky thing was that, in this particular lesson, we’re forming a hash out of single keys. In this case, words inputted by a user. So, rather than a multidimensional array (i.e., the sort of thing that would require a key and a value in between the |s), we’re just dealing with single things.

Follow me? Hopefully.

Point is, as I’m going through this, I do what I think is correct, and keep being told that I’ve set the hash up incorrectly. Now, I know that’s not right. I know that because I’ve set the variable – “frequencies” – equal to Hash.new(0), just as it should be. So the hash is correct, damn it. And, as I am wont to do in certain situations, I try it a few more times, hoping that at some point, the machine will realize that it’s wrong and I am right.

Of course, that didn’t happen. What was happening, however, was a bit of miscommunication in the form of documentation. See, the author of the course obviously knows his Ruby. In trying to explain this course, however, he’d skipped over the fact that, when you’re sorting a hash, it becomes an array. (I.e., it assigns a value based on the frequency [in this case] of the appearance of a word. So, in this example, the word ‘the’ appeared twice. So, the multidimensional array became “the” => 2. Of course, this was all set up earlier by splitting up the individual words in the input by way of “words = text.split” and then slapping a method to “words” so that the program tallied every appearance of a word. Anyway.)

So, if I haven’t lost you there (WordPress really needs a footnote function), then what we’re at now is that I’m looking at what is clearly a hash, being told that there is no hash, and then being confused. So, after bashing my face against the metaphorical wall a few times, I went to the Q&A forums, where one guy helpfully suggested thinking of the variables as:

|words, frequency|

instead of

|a, b|

as had been displayed in the lesson.

Perhaps you’re thinking, “Well duh. What else would it be?”

Well, for me, who’s still on his first cup of coffee, trying to remember if any of this was covered in my Ruby on Rails course (it was – just very briefly and in one of those “You won’t have to remember this for the test” ways), that made all the difference.

And, further, it made me realize just how important documentation is. It’s so, so important to remember that other people may be looking at your code, so you have to make sure it’s not in your own bizarre mind-language, whatever that may be. And I also think this goes double for editing manuscripts – moreso when you’re doing it by hand. Really, anything where you’re working with other people.

Documentation: Make it like breathing.

Beethoven The Bodhisattva

It’s one of THOSE topics. One of those things that literally anyone will talk about whenever you mention you’ve got an affinity for classical. “Oh, I love Beethoven!” Well, yeah. We all do. We all also love breathing. There’s a Peanuts strip about this (though I think there’s a Peanuts strip about everything), where Lucy asks Schroeder what the meaning of life is. He screams “BEETHOVEN” and then launches into a piano piece.

It’s funny, because it’s such a simple answer. Normally, the answer to that question is extremely convoluted. You hear things like “Helping others – but not to the point where you hurt yourself – unless—” or “making your own corner of the world a little better,” or “do no harm.” But those are usually given with lengthy, almost religious sermons about exactly what that means. Can the answer be as simple as “BEETHOVEN?” I think so. I also think the answer is simple because there is no “answer,” as we usually think about it. But that doesn’t really work, because there has to be a lengthy, weird discussion about just what I mean by that.

Back to Beethoven.

There’s a bit in The Salmon of Doubt where Douglas Adams introduces a recording of Bach’s “Brandenberg Concertos.” Among other things, he takes a minor swipe at Beethoven – and this is about the only thing I can ever say negative about Adams. He says that Beethoven shows us what it means to be Beethoven, but Bach shows us what it means to be human. I’m not so sure about that. Bach shows us what it means to be struggling with creativity, when you’re so confined by your circumstances that you have to work in a certain way for fear of some pretty severe repercussions. And yeah, that’s human. Who hasn’t felt that way? But that’s pretty solidly experiential human. That’s just what we see in our day-to-day lives. Is there anything deeper? Can someone like me, someone who’s pretty solidly materialistic, dare to say that?

Yep. Yep I can.

There lives in each of us a thread of commonality with each other and everything around us. It’s the universe, and not in the New Age way – not in the Neil DeGrasse Tyson, we’re-all-stardust way. We are the universe, and the universe loves to be us. Everything we experience is tied into the universe and, with each passing moment, the universe grows in a way that was impossible before. And that takes into account the good and the bad. Every moment of anxiety you have, every time I think about what it is I’m going to do in the future, that is just as important, just as significant, as the best of times – say, when you’re in the living room of your house puttin’ the moves on a lady. That is just as important, just as necessary, just as bloody vital as anything else in your life, or anything else that’s happening at that time. And I’m not sure Bach gets there.

I’m not saying Beethoven gets there all the time. The man’s work was extensive and staggering in breadth and subject matter, and everyone knows Beethoven, even if they don’t know they do. In that regard, he’s like Shakespeare, who’s just as relevant to being human – living in the universe – as Beethoven was. (And continues to be.) But what I am saying is that the Ninth symphony – the magnificent piece of work that looks out through the ages and, almost scoffing, says, “Go ahead. Try and dethrone me.” – gets there. In this piece, Beethoven gets it. He not only gets it, but he wants to make us get it. In the Ninth, Beethoven is a bodhisattva.

From the opening bars, those airy notes that tell you something is coming, something very strong and powerful, and you’d better be ready for it, the symphony knows exactly what it’s doing. Bach and Mozart revel in their intellectuality – and they should. Watch Bernstein talking about Mozart’s 40th and try to not be impressed. But the intellect is only part of the experience of life – it’s a fraction. The emotionality of life makes up a huge swath that a lot of people – myself included – are fairly reticent to talk about. Beethoven, in the Ninth, explores it. He expresses it through a form of communication I cannot fathom using. Putting the depth of this stuff into notes – translating it from one dude’s mind to making sure that everyone in the orchestra can express it, that’s something. And it’s all there, the warning of the first movement. The airyness gives way to mass. You start to feel the thrill of the piece, the joy of creation as expressed by a human being who has been there, done that, returned to tell the tale, and, though he can’t hear what you’re going to say to him, knows exactly what’s going to be said.

And then the second act. Gone is the airiness. The spiritual is put to the side, and we explore the material. Here, Beethoven understands the importance of the flesh and blood, and tells you that. He says, “Don’t be concerned about the spiritual for now. Let the percussion fill the fibers of your muscles. The counterpoints, the peaks and valleys, this is all something you know, isn’t it?” You’re taken on the waves of the experience of the universe, and, though if you’re just reading this, you might think I’m very, very high right now – I’m not. Sit in a room. A quiet room, one with minimal lighting and very high quality speakers. Put this on. Pay attention to the first movement, then think – think – about what the second movement is adding to it. For the spiritual is incomprehensible to the mind, but the material is right there in front of you if you pay attention to it.

And then the sudden shift to the third movement. What can we get from this? What the hell is going on here? Just as we’re riding the high of the material, we go back to this? This is like a slow version of the first movement! In fact, isn’t that what Alex called it in A Clockwork Orange? The slow bit from Ludwig Van? Well, it is. But it’s also something more than that. It’s what happens when you start fusing the spiritual and the material. It’s a prelude. It’s that plateau right before nirvana, where you look out at where you’ve come from – the valley below – and you think, “So it’s come to this.” It’s serene in its own rite, but it’s also a bit unnerving. The suddenness is something like when you first hit the Rockies after driving through Kansas. You want to shout out in glee, but you can’t, because you know that doing so would ruin the pristine view. (Well, moreso than it’s been ruined by that guy from Wisconsin doing 30 in a 55.) So you may be thinking this is when Beethoven wanted his listeners to chill out – maybe take a nap. You’re wrong. It’s vital. It’s just as vital as experiencing your anxiety and your fears.

Then, as the third movement winds down with an even – somehow – more low-key section, it begins to pick up. The combination of material and spiritual is complete. The sun has risen over the Rockies and – silly you – you were totally, utterly wrong in thinking that you’ve seen the best of what there is to see.

The entire orchestra picks it up. We hear the percussion rumbling as if a heavy thunder on the Plains, the strings providing the sonic pillow and comfort, the brass providing the rain. The airs of the first movement return – there’s yet more to come. You’re not ready for it – you’re never ready for something like this – but, by God, they’re on their way. The orchestra takes on a more playful note. Threads from previous movements reappear. You start to recognize certain things, and something’s nagging you. Something’s biting at the back of your head and, like forgotten song lyrics, you can’t quite put your finger on what it is.

And then – voila! – hallelujah! – the famous refrain. That bit that everyone and their mother knows. Yes. It’s that bit from Die Hard. It’s that thing that makes this symphony so popular: The start of the choral section. It is triumphant. It transcends mere humanity, and it shows us exactly what we can be, if only we would dare to be it.

This, by the way, is the part that was based on what I’ve heard is a fairly mediocre poem celebrating the ideals of the Enlightenment. You probably know that term because it was driven through your head in AP European History. It’s that period of intellectual growth that brought us, in many ways, to where we are today. It was, in many ways, a second Renaissance – though while the first one recaptured some of the glory of the Roman Empire, this second one made it new. It made it fresh. On the threshold of the Napoleonic Wars, after the ideals of the French Revolution soured, and way before the dark, demonic clouds of the World Wars gave birth to a breed of cynicism that looked down upon early cynics as being too cheerful, we had idealism. That philosophy that, yeah, we can know everything. We can do everything. We can unite everyone by raising them up. You know what else? We can make everything knowable to everyone, and we’re gonna put it all in dictionaries and encyclopedias. And it’s gonna be the best thing ever.

It is that idea, that premise, that is the common ground of the Ode to Joy. “All men become brothers” is a phrase in it. Yeah, it’s dated. It sounds something like what a hippie would say. But, you listen to the chorus, and, if you’re not thinking about Die Hard, then you get it. You understand that it is a possibility. You, by listening to this symphony, by letting it into your soul and into your mind, have become not just a passive listener, but a participant.

When I saw this performed in Nashville, there was a woman in front of me who looked at her husband – and I figured this out – about three times a minute. Once every twenty seconds, on average. The frequency increased during the chorus, and especially the finale, when everything coalesces into a glorious, sublime noise unlike anything you’ve ever heard before. It doesn’t matter if you can’t speak a word of German. Beethoven does the work for you. He puts everything in the music, forces the talented vocalist to do the work so that you may have even an inkling of what he’s talking about.

This isn’t a piece for the harpsichord, to be performed in a small setting and enjoyed with a fine wine. This is something that you should take with you every day of your life, every moment of your life. You are alive, and, whether you attribute that to religion or a series of stuff, that is pretty damned amazing. And Beethoven gets that. He wants you to understand it. In his scowling, bodhisattva regard, he looks out from history and says, “Even when I’m deaf, I hear these notes. I hear these notes because I look out in front of me, at the world, and I consider what has led me to this moment, and I am stricken with wonderment at it all. Aren’t you?”

As Germany unified, there was a special performance in Berlin. Bernstein conducted it. For this one time, the words of the chorus were rewritten to be “freedom” instead of “joy.” “Freiheit” instead of “freude.” It was an immediate way to put salve on a wound that was over thirty years old, and it would take many, many years – and some would say that it’s still in the process – before that wound was fully healed. But, while I wasn’t there, I’d imagine that, for the 17 minutes that this portion of the symphony was being performed and broadcasted, there was some sense that everything was going to be all right. That a wrong was going to be righted.

There’s a story about a Zen priest. This priest lived near a village, and people knew him. He begged, and he did his Zen thing. One day, a boy who lived on a farm near the village was given a horse for his birthday. The villagers all said how great this was, but the priest said, “We’ll see.” The next year, the boy fell from the horse and broke his leg so badly that it never healed. The villagers all said how awful this was, but the priest said “We’ll see.” When the boy was older, and the precinct’s men were being recruited for war, the boy was exempt because of his bad leg. Everyone said how great this was, but the priest said, “We’ll see.”

The priest understood the universe, you see. He knew that good, bad, they’re all the same. They are the universe, and to separate them is to try and do something pretty silly. Beethoven, though I don’t think he ever sat zazen, understood this as well. The joy – the chorus, the marriage of Enlightenment to music – that comes after the fusion of spiritual and musical ends. After that’s complete, then we get to experience what it all means.

That is what the Ninth means. And that is what Schroeder meant when he shouted “BEETHOVEN.”

My suggested recording: The super long, sublimely-paced, Gunter Wand arrangement. Trust me.

Utopian Nihilism

When I was a junior at UT, I took a class with Roland Vegso. He was a Hungarian guy who got his doctorate in literature from SUNY. Really great prof, and introduced a lot of fun literature to me – like Dadaism, which is one of the best things ever.

I remember the course for a couple of reasons. First: It was there that I realized that philosophers are horrible writers. Kant, for example. I wrote a paper on Kant, and Dr Vegso told me I needed a better understanding of Kant. He was right, but I don’t think that anyone has a good understanding of Kant.

Second, because a year later, as I was applying to writing programs, he said that my writing was ‘utopian nihilism.’ He said that didn’t make sense, and it shouldn’t be possible, but I pulled it off. (Of course, this explains why most of my stories get rejected from magazines. No one gets me, man.) So, naturally, as I do whenever I’m presented with a new idea, I retreat inward and think about the idea until I’ve either grown bored with it or convinced myself that I have mastered it.

So, let me tell you about my worldview:

(Forewarning: This is the most useless post you will probably read on the Internet. It’s one jackass’s attempt to just do some writing on a Tuesday morning and, rather than working on a story, he chooses to navel gaze for a thousand or so words. You’d probably be best off not reading this.)

It may be that ‘utopian nihilism’ isn’t the right term for it. I’d be tempted to call it ‘realism,’ or ‘pragmatism,’ but those are terms often used by Tea Party types when talking about why they don’t think the government should get involved in healthcare, but why the government should post the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls. So I’d say that I’m stuck with it, but ‘nihilism’ is equally bad.

It’s like talking about how you’re an atheist, and that defines your life. You define your life based on the absence of something, then don’t expect to be invited to parties. Many people get around this by calling themselves ‘humanists,’ which is much better, but has that vague air of pretension brought about by reading some Vonnegut essays in college and deciding to model your life after them.

So how do I define it? It goes back to Vegso’s course, specifically the meetings on Candide. Pangloss, the idiot professor, has a philosophy that best states, “This is the only world upon which we exist, thus: It is the best of all possible worlds.” Or something like that.

The mantra is put up to be satirized. Our world is clearly not the best. We have famine. We have war. Death. Hatred. All those things that make people read Camus and try to affect the apathetic air that only Camus could master. To claim that it is the best of all possible worlds is to ignore all of that. Surely, Voltaire not-says, we can do better? Surely we can imagine a world that’s better?

We can, but that’s not a good idea. Pangloss is – to a point – correct. This is the only world we have. It is the only world upon which you and I – at this moment – exist. We may disagree about the degree to which we exist on this world (are we projections of the universe, separate entities, but still the same? Or are we completely removed from one another), but we can agree that, if I punch you, you will feel it, and you will feel it here and not on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy. Thus, faced with the realization that we have no option but to exist on this planet, we must admit to ourselves that this is, by virtue of being the only thing we have to look at and to experience, as close to perfection as we can get.

See, it may be because of my background in Judaism that I hold this idea. Judaism is very much a materialist religion. The focus is not the life to come, nor is it being godlike, nor is it being Christlike (obviously), nor is it focusing on the connections between souls in some New Agey sense of the term. The focus is on the world in front of us. We are commanded by God to act in such a way that betters the world. All of the 612 commandments in the Torah – so the rabbis say – are given to do just that. While other religions may present ciphers about how or when their Messiah will come, Judaism holds that Moshiach will only come when all Jews follow the commandments. When they act righteously, in other words. (This, by the way, is a huge difference from Christianity, which says that grace is what brings a person to glory. In Judaism, the relationship between man and God is important [of course!] but equally important is the relationship of human to human.) So, from that perspective, the idea of looking at the world and complaining that it’s not perfect is absurd. If it’s not to your liking, then do something about it. But that doesn’t mean it’ll be perfect. Nothing will be – even Moses, who is chief among the prophets, screwed up!

Or, perhaps, it’s my sporadic forays into Zen that get me into this thought. “Desire is suffering,” is the common understanding of one of the tenets of Buddhism in general (and Zen). Many people take this to understand that Buddhism is an incredibly depressing religion. After all, Zen monks typically wear black, don’t they? They do, but black is very slimming and it’s hard not to look cool in black.

Jokes aside, Zen is not depressing. Zen is also not cheerful. It is also not ecstatic, mourning, or whatever else you may try to ascribe to it. It may help you with your delusions but–but I’m getting ahead of myself.

“Desire is suffering,” should be translated to “Excessive desire is suffering,” say many teachers. After all, you can’t crush desire. You will always desire to breathe. You will always desire to eat. Crushing those desires would definitely lead to suffering. Instead, Zen and Buddhism teaches adherents to look at their lives and see through the bullshit. To become – in a sense – the Dude. The Dude, after all, just wanted his rug back, you know?

This ties into the perfect world scenario because, in desiring a perfect world – that which, by definition, we cannot have – we are really weighing ourselves down with unrealistic expectations. We are, in fact, creating more suffering than there is in our goal to reach a land of no suffering. (In other words, we are attached to the idea of perfection.) By looking for perfection where it cannot exist, we are blinding ourselves to what is right in front of us. Pangloss’s statement, in a way, has a crack at the dharma. So, is it possible that Voltaire was a closet Buddhist?

Hell no. Just thought I’d mess with you for a second.

So where does this come in to everything we’re talking about? How is this ‘utopian nihilism?’ Well, it’s not. As I said before, nihilism isn’t a good term. It’s an absence of a term and, I think, a lazy cop-out to understanding the heart of the matter: In a world that, objectively, has no direction or meaning, we are not only free to define our own meaning, but we are required to do so. Nihilism – to the layman who has not studied philosophy – brings to mind Uli from The Big Lebowski: A drunken asshole passed out on a pool float because there is nothing to believe in. So, let us take that as the definition. You may disagree, and, to an extent, I do as well, but it’s more or less accurate. And as for the ‘utopian’ part of the label, well, we all know that ‘utopia’ is ‘no place.’ So, one could take that to mean that ‘utopian nihilism’ is just an acknowledgement that the world is imperfect, and perfection is impossible.

Okay, so what the hell does that mean? It’s simple: There is no objective meaning in the world. We are not here to make money; we are not here to dick around. We are not here to ____. We are here, though. That’s enough. Once you understand there is no purpose, then you may make your purpose. It’s the initial steps you need to take to get to that that are rough. Why are they rough? Because you need to get to that point where you understand that, just because humanity may be the only intelligent life in the universe, that doesn’t give you a license to be a dick.

In my mind, ‘utopian nihilism’ is just looking at the world and seeing that it’s all we have. Then, you make the leap from that to realizing that it would be a real shame to make the world be a miserable place.