Ampersand Monthly, Volume 1 | Issue 2 by The Editors

AMPERS

& MONTHLY

VOLUME 1 | ISSUE 2

AMPERS

4 Suicide of contemporary reality

MONTHLY

5 Magnum opus

12 Coffee

THIS MONTH Columns

3 For the love of language Cetology, or junk science in a good book 7 14 Rationalizing the irrational: fitting the world to the golden ratio Creative Outlet

10 Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s amazing: an ode to the electron 16 Stepping outside our private square Brain Teaser

8 Murder in the night

18 Did you know? Test your knowledge in the arts and sciences Interested in writing something for the journal or newsletter? Check out www.theampersandjournal.com! Submissions for our amper&monthly need only to be 500 words or less, with pictures and comics also welcome. Check our website for submission deadlines and for details regarding submissions for our journal.

Send your submissions to theampersandjournal@gmail.com.

for the love of by Zach Berge-Becker

ince the year 2000, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, 35 new words have been woven into the ever-expanding cloth that is the English language. The origins of these words range from the creation of corporations (e.g. podcast) to loan words (Soduku) adopted from a cornucopia of sources from across the atlas.

Pari-Pari and Saku-Saku (Japanese) - We use the word “crispy” for anything from cereal to fried chicken, even though we know that the two don’t have the same texture. Pari-pari is an adjective meaning “hard crispy”, and can be used to describe the texture of cereal before milk is added, while saku-saku is an adjective meaning “soft crispy”, and can be used to describe the texture of fried chicken. Mamihlapinatapei (Yaghan) - This word is particularly interesting, in that it is considered the “most succinct word” in the Guinness Book of World Records, and one of the hardest words to translate. Mamihlapinatapei is a noun, which refers to a silent, but meaningful look shared by two people, each hoping that the other will initiate something that they both desire but neither one wishes to start. It can refer to a look shared when engaging in some terpsichorean activity while romantic music plays, but it could also be used to effectively explain the Volunteer’s Dilemma in game theory. If these fantastic foreign words interest you, I recommend reading Untranslatables: The Most Intriguing Words from Around the World by C.J. Moore. In the meantime, see if you can find the 14 English words in this column that were adopted from the names of Greco-Roman mythological characters. Happy hunting!

ut before we become too jovial over these venerable new vocables, let us consider that between 1850 and 1899 there were 42,429 words added to English, and between 1950 and 1999 there were 12,824 words added. When the chronology is considered, it does appear as though we have some catching up to do. Therefore, since we are fortunate enough to be speaking a language that is very open to accepting new words into its lexicon, I would like to humbly suggest a few words that ought to be adopted. Desenrascanço (Portuguese) - Picture, if you will, that your keys have fallen into a crevice and are tantalising you as you claw for them hopelessly. Are you just going to let your stentorian cries of panic echo despairingly? No! You’re going to grab some random items in your vicinity, and pretend to be MacGyver until those keys are in your hands once more. Desenrascanço is a noun for an improvised and imaginative solution to a problem without adequate tools, and in Portugal it usually refers to initiation tests for freshmen in Universities. Jayus (Indonesian) - “Why did the chicken cross the road?” No matter which punch line is chosen to follow this opener, this joke is inevitably going to be a jayus - a noun referring to something which was meant to be funny, but didn’t end up being funny at all. 3

suicide

contemporary reality

by Caleb Harrison

Paintings: Martyr to Freedom (left) and Absence of Freedom (right) by R. Gopakumar

here is no “rabbit hole” but for that which we are digging. Plagued by the oppressive realities that comprise the all-encompassing “Contemporary Reality” (henceforth: CR), i.e. knowledge about the external world (especially concerning the Sciences), we are in a state of remission from CR, a post-addiction tremens. Although we are not yet “post”, as it were. Our remission, our withdrawal, has led us to a paradigmatic rebound: Fantasy. Fantasy is largely produced/supported by The Arts. Here we have a very clear dichotomy: Creativity vs. Scientific Knowledge. The former revolves largely around non-extant things like vampires, werewolves, wizards, monsters, etc. The latter involves knowledge, albeit largely theoretical, about the state of things like climate change, health & medicine, etc. Scientific Knowledge (of CR) is both exciting and frightening, and thus we cling to Creativity as an escape, as solace from the oppressive nature of enlightenment. The rabbit hole we are digging is one and the same pit as Plato’s Cave, only we all of us have seen The Sun and turned back to our precious ignorance, decidedly digging deeper and feeding the flames of the fire that casts the shadows of our false reality upon the wall in front of us. In this process, we have loaded the pistol and are holding CR’s finger on the trigger as he, the innocent villain, begs for mercy. Then cometh to the table “The Humanities”, those precious things. There is no shortage of these machines, and that is precisely what they are: (unfortunate) machinations of Human Cre-

ativity. One recognizes the weakness of these machinations in our understanding of Contemporary Reality given the example of Politics: Scientific Knowledge is not political (though the scientific world most certainly is) in the same way that a tidal wave is not political. A tidal wave will not take a vote before gutting you and your city. Could it be so that our extending knowledge of those things to which the Sciences refer is leading us further from them? It seems that the more we know, the more we wish to escape our knowledge and write a book about a wizard kid or a toothsome vampire. This is because while knowledge is exciting, Fantasy, or that which cannot be, is even more exciting. We are digging our rabbit hole deeper and deeper. “Apocalypse” is perhaps the most relevant theme for our consideration. This is a timeless Fantasy harnessed by pseudo-sciences (think Y2K, the 2012 thing) and Creativity (think Lars von Trier’s Melancholia) alike. This is where the bookends meet. The world will, inevitably, end. But surely not before we force CR’s hand, and become entirely immersed in Fiction. And so, our program is simple: Creativity must be stopped. Unless we wish to become insentient beings (peaceful but empty), we must destroy The Arts and execute Fiction. Do not be fooled! It is not Scientific Knowledge that will lead us to the dystopian reality of The Matrix or Orwell’s 1984, but our own masochistic, homicidal Creativity! Free the innocent Contemporary Reality, he means you no harm. And do not think: simply know. 4

by Elena Ponte

gnum Opus

hen we think of alchemy, our thoughts are drawn to dark, dank caves, old savants with trailing white beards chanting over brilliant fires, and bubbling beakers. The study of alchemy has for centuries been shrouded in the occult and married to magical rituals and incantations. A bit of research and digging, though, reveals a trail of concrete scientific discoveries and philosophical ideas that have come to shape our modern understanding of how we undertake progress and how we define ourselves.

lchemy is a universal quest, a vision of apotheosis which men and women across time and space have endeavoured to realize. Dating back to ancient Egypt, the secret of the philosopher’s stone has inspired a vision of man reborn with the enlightenment of a great power within: Siddhartha under the Bodhi tree, Agora ascending to Olympus, Yoda vanishing into thin air. In many ways, alchemy is very much a proto-science, precursor to modern chemistry. Alchemists recreated experiments in hopes of creating measurable and reproducible change. In fact, many legitimate scientific breakthroughs come from alchemy, including the discoveries of early metallurgy and pesticides. The word alchemy comes of the Arabic al-kīmiyā’: from al, the, + kīmiyā’, transmutation. The ultimate goal of alchemy, the magnum opus - great work- is the philosopher’s stone. The philosopher’s stone has many names and forms: it has been called the elixir of life, Amrit Ras, the Cintamani of the Buddhist and Hindu tradition, and even the Holy Grail. According to legend, the philosopher’s stone grants eternal life and turns base metals into gold. When ground into powder, the colour hinted at saffron; when solid, the elixir of life was mesmerizing: transparent, glass-like, and a deep blood red with undertones of purple. It was,

of course, believed to be denser than any other substance, and far heavier than gold. The list of its fantastical properties is extremely detailed in the literature – soluble in any liquid, yet incombustible in fire - and makes of the stone a mythical gem of another world, lost like dragons into an ethereal mist. There are no boundaries to alchemy. Even the intellectual luminaries of today, sitting in their pristine and well cited towers of hard fact, observation, and indisputable laws, wryly tip their hats to this age-old science. The conglomeration of all alchemical writings yields a work which spans every physical and social science and ventures deep into the remote arts. Take for example Michael Maier (1568-1622), a German alchemist who in a semiotic twist made of the magnum opus a mathematical quest. In Atalanta Fugiens he writes: “make of a man and woman a circle; then a quadrangle; out of this a triangle; make again a circle, and you will have the Stone of the Wise. Thus is made the stone, which thou canst not discover, unless you, through diligence, learn to understand this geometrical teaching.” Some verbal gymnastics later and ta da: square the circle to determine the alchemical glyth of the creation of the elixir of life. So kick up your feet, grab yourself a steaming mug of tea, and let’s explore our greatest intellectual heritage.

by Joseph Kidney

Cetology W

junk science in a good book

hen I was in the third grade, our teacher organized a day on which we were told to come dressed as whatever it was we wanted to be when we grew up. In an attempt to one-up all of my peers, I decided to go as a brain surgeon. My mother, my doctor mother, went beyond humouring me, and for some reason led me on a raid through one of the local hospitals, pilfering everything from the pale green surgeon’s garb to a small but bulky box which acted as a backlight for X-ray films, providing me with a fine opportunity to be a pompous prick and explain to my fellow eight-year-olds what “Magnetic Resonance Imaging” was. The centrepiece of this exercise in dressup and hubris was meant to be a convincing gelatine replication of the human brain. But, and I recall this with the shuddering type of embarrassment that telescopes half a life, I lifted with trembling hands the upturned bowl, unveiling not the finishing bang of awestriking sculpture, but the flaccid plop of the pulverized thing. Too much water. Here is what I’d like to suggest to you: that I, standing at the prow of that third-grade class, hiding inside what must have

looked like very baggy pyjamas, recoiling from the mashed and translucent red mess on the desk, was as much a credible brain surgeon as Herman Melville is a credible zoologist in the thirtysecond chapter of his otherwise magnificent novel, Moby Dick. Seeing as how this publication hoists a flag of Arts/Science integration, I thought it might be fitting to look at a famous moment of utter failure in the history of this sort of integration. Of course, one can always mock with impunity and a perhaps unavoidable condescension from this, the shorter side of the grave, so I should say that I think Melville was one of our most admirable novelists ever to have lived and died. That being said, Melville’s “Cetology” chapter in Moby Dick has rankled in my gut for far longer and with a fuller intensity than anything from a good book should. For those who have been spared it, we get a glib treatment of taxonomical history and a final/fatuous insistence that whales are most definitely fish, 7

not mammals. This is not a case where one looks back on say, Aristotle’s more inexperienced age and says: “What error-ridden nonsense! Only a moron could have thought this.” In Melville’s case, he came long after evidence that contradicted his belief. In fact, he makes us aware of his awareness of Linnaeus’ observations that whales are warm blooded and possess lungs among other mammalian qualifications. He then invokes the authority of “two Nantucket messmates” who back him up in calling Linnaeus’ work “humbug.” O, and the Bible gets a citation. Make of that what you will. Ignorance of science is not in itself deplorable. What does, however, give the reader of Moby Dick all the right to skim past the thirty-second (though it drags for that tenfold) chapter is the public pillory of good science, and the ganging-up on poor Linnaeus by three undoubtedly burly sailors. Still, this shouldn’t dissuade anyone from reading Moby Dick. There are one hundred and thirty-four chapters left after the exclusion of “Cetology.” Even it, for all its faults, is good for a laugh or two. Though be advised: these dry up quickly.

Murder

in the

Night

scream rang through the halls of Maypence Manor as the household prepared groggily for the day. The butler, Jones, correctly discerned the sound as originating in his master, the retired Major Maypence’s room, and rushed in a dignified manner (or as dignified as speed walking would allow) towards the shriek. Upon arrival, he immediately took in hand the hysterical maid and barred the door against further inquisitive faces, then proceeded calmly to inform, not the police, but the most reputable and, above all, discreet private detective in the area. Enter Richard Dickson, private eye. Upon entering the room, Dickson immediately noticed that the curtains were drawn. His eyes were then drawn to the figure outlined dramatically in

by Jenny Han

the tousled white sheets. The Major, in striped pajamas stained dark red with blood, looked far older than his sixty-four years, but according to the household his physique was like that of a man two decades younger. The Major’s eyes were open, staring up at the ceiling through a thick, unruly head of steel-grey hair. A kitchen knife stood erect upon his chest. Dickson, ignoring the anxious glances of the household, circled the four-poster bed, tipped some ash into the blackened logs of the fireplace and lit his now clean pipe from the candle stub brought in by the maid. Puffing contemplatively, Dickson turned a somber face toward the gathered crowd and conveyed his wish to interview each member individually in the study downstairs.

The Butler: “Major Maypence was a good employer, always paid us on time

and made sure we had a little extra during the holidays, but he could be a bit caustic and hard to place at times. Why just a week ago, at his birthday celebration, my wife (she’s the cook you know) burnt the potatoes just a little and the Major went ballistic. Gave her the notice, you know. She has to find a new employer in the next week or else we will have nowhere to go. I was going to tell him today that I am leaving too. Can’t leave the poor wife to fend for herself can I? Some arrangements could have been made, I guess, but last night was the last straw. He fairly hollered at the wife in front of everyone during supper. Sure, he had a bit to drink and it may have gone to his head, but it isn’t right to yell at a lady like that. Reduced her to tears, he did, and she ran straight out of the room. After dinner (I was still on duty after all) I went into the kitchen to look for her, then made sure that everything was locked up and ready for the night before retiring to our rooms. I have been nowhere else since.” 8

The Cook: “That Major Maypence was a hard man to please, especially when he’s

been in his cups. Why, I’ve worked at three other households before without any complaint at all... But since the moment I came here there has been nothing but criticisms. I am a good cook, and I take pride in my work, but I will not allow myself to be abused by anyone, least of all him. All high and mighty he was when sober, but let me tell you, there hasn’t been a womanizer like him on this side of the Thames once he’s had a few drinks. Why he even propositioned me once. Of course I said no, but I’d made up my mind to get out of here even before he gave notice. Since you asked, I was locked up in my room since the middle of dinner. Those words were not fit for the ears of any Christian and darned if I had to listen to them. My husband joined me at around ten o’clock and we went straight to bed. The knife in his chest was left in the kitchen like any other night. Why, anyone could have picked it up after I finished cooking.”

The Maid: “Major Maypence was a brute of a man, but the pay was good and,

with jobs being what they were, I had to be satisfied. You should have seen how he treated the cook last night. It was hard to watch and, what’s more, I had to do my share of the cleanup as well as the cook’s. The butler came around the kitchen somewhere around nine, then went elsewhere to find his wife and I was left alone in the kitchen to wash up and prepare for tomorrow’s meal. I’m not even getting a pay raise. After washing up I went up to the Major’s bedroom to stoke the fire since it was a chilly night. The Major was asleep by that point, so when I finished I went straight to bed. I was the one who discovered the body this morning since I am usually the first person to come into the master bedroom. I have to relight the fire so the Master won’t be cold when he wakes up.”

After collecting the testimonies, Richard Dickson gathered the household in the study. Many suspicious looks were exchanged as everyone understood that the killer was now among them. Dickson looked from one to the other silently, then cleared his throat and spoke…

Who was the culprit and why?

it’s an amazing: ode to an electr n

by Margaret Gordon

hey say it’s amazing that you’ve lived this long this way they always

of an undead cat like that could placate you, amaze you enough to accept the fact that you are spinning one way, without someone to counteract your actions, to share

say that it’s amazing you’ve lived half your life1 as a particle, a particular way that you’ve lived half your life as a wave. They always say it’s amazing that you’ve lived2. That’s all you ever hear them say. As if it’s possible you could exist any other way. As if it’s possible you could have gone away like your brother, long gone so far from your mom that there’s more than a million places he’s unlikely to be found3 and she has lost her ground state and stares at the ground like it was a map of the infinite places he’s unlikely to be found if she could only find the energy to excite you enough to look. But he’s long gone, half a lifetime ago, moved on with a particular wave to let you know he would be gone; and left your mother only strong enough to pull stronger on you. With all her attractive force turned on you grabbing on to one electron instead of holding two. She has become unstable, or so they say, with a fable

Excited in your element you were seen as specific lines but the physicists find you are a wave of all possibility until they choose to watch you fall out of all possibilities to something they can see4. Particularly something that matters: a particle of energy; But that’s not all that you can be. A blot of light – they can take a picture of you in which there are two dots both of which are you, probably, not two different dots to be connected in close proximity but you, who can blip in and out of existence5 resistant to letting us know where you are for sure because we know the speed you got here from where you were. They tried to predict when you were evicted from the kids table and moved on to an orbital more stable for a particle as negative as you, but to observe you is to affect your possibilities as determined by The Principle

1. Because there are only two options (an atom is a particle or it is a wave), artistic license has been taken to conclude that an electron divides its time evenly between acting like a particle and acting like a wave. 2. The idea of electrons being alive or not calls the definition of life into question. Again, artistic license has been taken. 3. An electron is considered to be completely removed from an atom when there the atom has an infinite number of orbitals that the electron cannot be found in, written by convention as n = ∞ (Mustos 153).

4. Arntz 5. Amtz

of Indeterminacy6. As discerned by Heisinburgh, who thought in his youth7 that Schrödinger was crap, that you ‘re not a matterwave and the classic idea of your path only exists when we see it. He knew that knowing your present location does not mean we can calculate your future, to the extent that he cannot resolve your life’s events by the logical laws that govern his own8. It is harder to guess where you’re going as more about you is known.

in the box they’ve put you in to say it’s amazing you’ve lived as a particle and wave. mean we can calculate your future, to the extent that he cannot resolve your life’s events by the logical laws that govern his own10. It is harder to guess where you’re going as more about you is known. Like the atom, your family, is not something solid that waits with no one to see it in an empty room. No, matter is mostly tiny particles in a vacuum, family is dense quirks in vast space. The fact to face is that your nuclear family is not real, but a tendency11. Nothing more. Nothing less important. Nevertheless, don’t you mind that people always mistake you for a cat, that may or may not be dead. It’s possible Schrödinger only said that to make great minds take you into their minds and find how how amazing it is that you’ve lived in the box they’ve put you in to say it’s amazing you’ve lived as a particle and wave.

Like the atom, your family, is not something solid that waits with no one to see it in an empty room. No, matter is mostly tiny particles in a vacuum, family is dense quirks in vast space. The fact to face is that your nuclear family is not real, but a tendency9. Nothing more. Nothing less important. Nevertheless, don’t you mind that people always mistake you for a cat, that may or may not be dead. It’s possible Schrödinger only said that to make great minds take you into their minds and find how how amazing it is that you’ve lived 6. A more descriptive name for the uncertainty principle (Cassidy) 7. He was only 25 at the time (Cassidy) 8. Heisenberg proposed that, at a subatomic level, the law of causality fails to be valid. (Cassidy) 9. Heisinbergh stated, as he and Bohr were learning, that an atom is not solid matter, but a tendency of existence. (Arntz)

10. Heisenberg proposed that, at a subatomic level, the law of causality fails to be valid. (Cassidy) 11. Heisinbergh stated, as he and Bohr were learning, that an atom is not solid matter, but a tendency of existence. (Arntz)

what do you know about by Jean-Marc Therrien-Blanchet & Marie Chantal Ferland

he second most traded commodity after petroleum, coffee is the favourite beverage of adult Canadians, other than tap water. According to the Coffee Association of Canada, « 81% of Canadians drink coffee occasionally and over 63% of Canadians over the age of 18 drink coffee on a daily basis, making coffee the # 1 beverage choice of adult Canadians. Coffee is a more popular beverage in Canada than the United States with just 49% of Americans drinking it on a daily basis. » Just so you know, the leading coffee consuming country per capita is Finland, with

coffee ?

12.0 kg consumed annually. To contrast, Canadian consumption is 5.7 kg per capita annually. The average daily consumption of Canadian coffee drinkers is 2.6 cups. Not surprising, since coffee has up to 800 flavour characteristics that our senses can detect, compared to wine’s 400.

ricorn; the ‘coffee belt’. Robusta plants are hardier and can grow a little further from the equator than arabica plants. Arabica coffee has a better taste than robusta coffee. The latter is used to make instant and lower grade coffee. After flowering, these plants produce small cherry-like fruit, which ripen from green to yellow to red at uneven rates, meanTHE COFFEE PLANT ing that a single bush will have The two plants that are the most green, yellow, and red cherries used to make coffee are coffea at a given time. This means that arabica and the hardier coffea the cherries must be picked by canephora (robusta beans). These hand. Once ripe, the cherries are evergreen plants grow between picked, pulped, dried, graded, the tropics of Cancer and Cap- and roasted to varying degrees,

depending on the desired flavor. Dark roasted coffee has a stronger taste, but gourmet coffee drinkers prefer light roasts, as roasting destroys many flavour molecules and caffeine. So contrary to what we’d expect, dark roast coffee has less caffeine than light roast.

herder, who noticed that his goats were dancing after eating coffee cherries. Kaldi burns the bush and discovers coffee’s characteristic aroma. The story is apocryphal: it did not appear in writing before 1671; it isn’t credible evidence. At first, the coffee beans were just roasted and soaked in water. The first evidence of ground cofTHE ORIGINS OF COFFEE fee is from 1554 Constantinople. The first credible evidence of In the 17th century coffee spread coffee drinking or knowledge of to Europe, India, Indonesia, and the coffee plant comes from 15th then to the Americas. In the century Yemen, and by the next 1660s coffeehouses became popcentury it spread throughout the ular in England. Coffee probably Arabic world. There is a legend fuelled Renaissance and Enlightabout Kaldi, an Ethiopian goat enment thinkers just like it fuels

today’s students and workers.

COFFEE AND HEALTH The stimulant effect of coffee was noticed early. In 17th century England, the beverage was thought to insure promptness. It was believed that coffee was good for measles, smallpox, gout, kidney stones, menstrual problems, and controlled lust. Today, many studies have been done about the health effects of coffee. Our next column will be about the chemistry and health of coffee.

rationalizing the irrational:

by Isabella Liu

fitting the world to the golden ratio

n the arts and sciences, it is tempting to apply scientific rigour to our interpretation of beauty. Many scholars seek an objective - a simple definition of beauty - particularly in the arts. A number that has been considered beautiful by mathematicians and artists alike for millennia is the golden ratio, φ (tell us how we can pronounce this symbol). Two quantities, x and y, obey the golden ratio if xy = x +x y = ϕ . Like π, φ is irrational. Unlike π, however, φ has a convenient fractional 1+ 5 form, ϕ = 2 ≈ 1.618 . A golden rectangle is a rectan€ dimensions that obey the golden ratio. gle with

€

The golden ratio has a habit of appearing in unusual places. The ratio of consecutive numbers in the Fibonacci sequence approaches the golden ratio asymptotically. Scholars have often claimed to have discovered the golden ratio in classical art and architecture. A frequent claim is that the ratio between the slope length and half-base of Great Pyramid of Giza is φ, a peculiar triangle known as a Kepler triangle. Markowsky laments that this is a modern rationalization of coincidence. In The Development of Mathematics, Eric Temple Bell argues that the ancient Egyptians were only familiar with special Pythagorean triplets, such as the 3:4:5 triangle. Often, authors will superimpose golden rectangles on works of art to demonstrate its occurrence in say, the Mona Lisa. Markowsky argues that without a concrete definition or standard methodology for determining its occurrence, authors are able to identify what they believed to be the golden ratio. Markowsky states that most people tend to overlook the fact that the surfaces of real objects are not perfect, and that their measurements are approximate. The author continues that authors of such claims tend to treat measurements of real objects as actual numbers and therefore imposing the golden ratio on the subject. The search for the golden ratio in art and architecture may be merely an example of apophenia, the cognitive behaviour of identifying patterns in random noise. Our brains’ patternrecognition system seeks to connect the dots we perceive in nature. Scientific American writer Michael Shermer explains that this process of associative learning is a fundamental animal behaviour. However, the brain is not capable of distinguishing “true” and “false” patterns. In

the context of natural selection, it is better to be safe than sorry when identifying patterns associated with threats. Shermer presents the fact that we are extremely poor at assigning probabilities to the “true” or “false” pattern. Therefore, when we perceive works such as the Great Pyramid, we are cognitively biased to believe that there is an intrinsic relationship present, φ. Many scholars have misinterpreted the occurrence of the golden ratio in art and architecture due to ambiguous guidelines for its qualification. There is irony in the diligence of scholars who seek the golden ratio in works of art. Despite extensive time spent searching for the ratio, the resulting observation is simply a phenomenon, and not a characteristic inherent to the artistic process.

For detailed discussion of the golden ratio, the historically-inclined reader is encouraged to see Roger Herz-Fischler’s A Mathematical History of Division in Extreme and Mean Ratio and Mario Livio’s The Golden Ratio.

stepping

OUTSIDE

our

private square by Noelle Soudais

ecently, there has been an onslaught of the same repeated message plastered everywhere: on the radio, in magazines, in books, on the internet, and on TV. The message? Very simple: step outside your little world. The question is: what little world? Sociologists, scientists, thinkers, shakers, and producers all chant their chosen mantra, but apart from telling us that the way we live our lives is not satisfactory, their analysis does not cast a wider light. Kathryn Schultz, author of “Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error” and journalist, paints all of us as Agamemnons, seated on our thrones of ego, always thinking we are right, never able to handle that we might be wrong. Sam Richards, sociologist at Penn State University, urges us to empathise, to reach beyond our narrow mind-set and walk an inch in someone else’s shoes. The list goes on, and the tabulation is not pretty. This holiday break, I sped to catch up on life and the world: after just two weeks with the same idea hollered from all corners, the Renaissance ideal of mankind has been flipped on its head to reveal a very pitiful creature. News flash: humans are selfish, ignorant, arrogant, intolerant, incapable of understanding, and just plain pig-headed.

This seems a bit harsh. And to ask for us to step outside our world? Are these self-named thinkers asking us to throw off our human shell and ascend to a higher plane? An out-of-body experience certainly seems to count as stepping outside our world. And perhaps as a result of this ascension we can become harmoniously intertwined with the cosmos, see the true balance of right and wrong as abstract terms, and be one with the world. Now, I am not seeking to demean their argument; at its core, they are simply asking us to explore the world around us with an open mind. What I do take issue with is the way they go about extending this message. Schultz asks us to contemplate that we might not always be right; she does this by telling us that we are wrong in thinking we are right all the time and that she has the right idea. A bit ironic.* The truth is, we are wonderfully human. We have

the unique talent of having our own opinions and our own ideas, even if these fly in the face of all accepted facts. We are capable of great empathy, but only because of our very refined sense of social belonging – if we were not so fiercely loyal, how could we comprehend another’s loss and suffering? And so, I say: please do live inside your private square, and make this private square bigger. To truly embrace the wonderful contradictions of ourselves, reject the idea of a private square** and instead assume that old adage: the world is your oyster. Some might be choosing to paint humanity in darkness, but the truth remains that people today travel farther, are more accepting, are more willing to try new things, and are more willing to challenge themselves. If anything, we are just more passionate about our ideas, and is this not the true expression of the most fundamental human emotion?

Did you Know?

by Jenny Han

1. Which monkey is also called ‘the Englishman’? a) the white uakari b) the chimpanzee c) the mandrill d) the spider monkey e) the howler monkey f) none of the above 2. What is a binturong? a) A song sang by birds of paradise during mating b) What a beaver’s dam is called in Asia c) A broth made from the flesh of crocodiles d) A member of the civet family, commonly called a bearcat e) An instrument famous for its melodious tone 3. Which is the major spiral galaxy closest to the Milky Way? a) Sirius b) Alpha Centauri c) Andromeda d) Canis Major e) Phoenix Dwarf 4. Which is/are the only animal(s) seriously affected by leprosy? a) Humans, raccoons, mice b) Raccoons, opossums, skunks c) Humans, mice, nine-banded armadillos d) Opossums, nine-banded armadillos, Humans e) None of the above 5. Who is widely recognized as the first writer of detective fiction? a) Tolstoy b) Hemingway c) Dickens d) Shakespeare e) Edgar Allen Poe

Look for the answers at our website!

O ONE INGREDIENT ICE CREAM 1. Cut a banana into rounds 2. Set on plate and freeze for three hours at least 3. Blend the banana; at first, the consistency will be icy, wait for the point at which the texture becomes creamy. 4. You’re done! Add nutella, peanut butter, or anything else to taste.

TEA The widespread form chai comes from Persian chay. This derives from Mandarin chá, which passed overland to Central Asia and Persia, where it picked up the Persian grammatical suffix -yi.

MICROWAVES@SSMU Let’s start a movement. We propose this: instead of individually warming up our meals, let’s try to fit as many containers in that microwave. Let’s maximize time and conversation as opposed to waiting forever in silent lines.

OH O

M FO D cGILL

talks

O H

O OH

THE BROWN BAG CHALLENGE.

OH O

Note to all conscious cooks: remember to pack in tubberware or nifty glass containers.

BEEF? ONLY IF FREE. You’ve heard of vegetarians, piscopetrians, and vegans. But what about freegans?

Freegans will normally stick to a meat-free diet. However, when offered beef, they will not refuse. Anything free is game!

AMPERS

MONTHLY

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Elena Ponte

EDITORIAL BOARD Zach Berge-Becker Jenny Han Caleb Harrison Joseph Kidney Isabella Liu Jane Zhang CONTRIBUTORS Marie Chantal Ferland Margaret Gordon Jean-Marc Therrien-Blanchet