In Search of Lost Time

Oh me, oh my, is it really 3 weeks since I last wrote this blog? Feels like it too! The Other Life has overtaken me (temporarily I hope). Apart from swanning around sightseeing and eating a lot with my guests (two families have been and gone and my dad left just yesterday) I have been busy getting wordplay off the ground here in Opicina – and at the same time trying to hold on to wordplay in London. If that sounds like a painful kind of straddle that should really be the splits – that’s quite accurate. If I can pull it off (an unfortunate mixed metaphor – sorry – though worse if I were a guy…) it will be a GOOD LIFE! And if I can’t I will slowly but surely start to go mad as I stand looking out of my kitchen window onto the glorious woods beyond… 

I had toyed with the idea that coming over here I might just dabble around a bit, settle the kids in, drop them off at school, do the housework…get organised (sounds trivial but believe you me it is ALL CONSUMING) and then, in the little spaces between chores, sit down and write my pot boiling Dickensian/Joycean bestseller (an oxymoron if ever there was one). But somehow or other (even though I did sign up for NaNoWriMo – the international internet attempt to encourage all would-be-writers out there that you can indeed write a novel in a month and November’s the time to do it!) the thought of those empty hours ahead in an empty room, in an empty city…fill me with…emptiness. It is too odd to be displaced so totally and imagine that you are capable of living happily inside your own head in your own world for months on end.

Though it can be done, of course. Many writers I suppose have done it that way (though Marcel Proust clearly had a very deep knowledge of the culture that surrounded his four cork-lined walls) . But ’tis not for me. May well just be another excuse to put off doing what must be done (the writing!) but…for now, it’s an excuse that works. But oh that novel under my bed, how it haunts me! When shall I haul it out and dust it off and knuckle down???

Anyway, number one in a long list of more-urgent-things-to-do-than-write-a-novel was to try and sort my websites/blogs out. Have not been entirely successful – yet – and appreciate your feedback on this. I’m trying to nominally separate the personal from the professional. So now I have a personal blog (this one!) where I mention all my foibles, relatives, and daily battles with toilet-cleaning responsibilities as well as the above mentioned crises and procrastinations about the very thing I am supposed to know so much about in my professional life (actually this kind of painful putting off makes me very qualified to minister sympathy and tolerance to all the wretched would-be writers that come knocking on my door).

And I have a professional (aagggh..such a loaded word, that one. Show me the money!) blog which is over on the other side http://wordplaywriting.wordpress.com The idea is that on that one, I try and keep exclusively to things to do with wordplay – courses I’m running, book clubs I’m organising (magari) – and if I’m really organised I’ll also write up what we do in the courses – and get students to participate. The main reason for this is that, if you’re doing a search for writing courses and you stumble upon this blog, it may well not be entirely clear to you exactly what is going on. 

On the other hand, I am having another breakdown (similar to my earlier blog on classifying the books on my bookshelves…I told you I am an absolute nerd) about where the dividing line falls between these two blogs…all writing is writing innit? Do I put my thoughts on a book I’ve just read (Mick Jackson’s The Underground Man, for example) here – or there? Do I write up my experiences of NaNoWriMo here or there? Is it dangerous to expect people to flit seamlessly between the two? And don’t get me started on twitter??? You may have noticed – I started up a whole new twitter account so it could go on my other blog (save the abovementioned customers stumbling upon my domestic life yet again) – but there are infinite complications with this division of labour which I am too bored (and ignorant) to go into here.

Oh well.

Feels like I’ve written a different kind of entry today – even more random than usual. That’s because I have indeed been gone too long. Blogging is a writing muscle like any other – and needs exercising. Writing is always about finding the words. Not sure I’ve done that at all here. But, can’t be too precious. That was the reason for blogging in the first place.

Ta-ra. I’m off to t’other blog now, to put on my professional cap. Better have a sobering cup of coffee first…

I shudder to think about what Marcel Proust might have done if he’d had access to a camera phone that shoots HD video and unlimited hard drive space.

The novelist’s happy discovery was to think of substitutes for those opaque sections, impenetrable to the human soul, their equivalent in immaterial sections, things, that is, which one’s soul can assimilate. After which is matters not that the actions, the feelings of this new order of creation to appear to us in the guise of truth, since we have made them our own, since it is in ourselves that they are happening, that they are holding a thrall, as we feverishly turn over the pages of the book, our quickened breath and staring eyes. And once the novelist has brought us to this state, in which, as in all purely mental states, every emotion is multiplied ten-fold, into which his book comes to disturb us as might a dream, but a dream more lucid and more abiding than those which come to us in sleep, why then, for the space of an hour he sets free within us all the joys and sorrows in the world, a few of which only we should have spend years of or actual life in getting to know, and the most intense of which would never be revealed to us because the slow course of their development prevents us from perceiving them. It is the same in life, the heart changes, and it is our worst sorrow; but we know it only through reading, through our imagination: in reality its alteration, like that of certain natural phenomena, is so gradual that, even if we are able to distinguish, successively, each of its different states, we are still spared the actual sensation of change.

Marcel Proust

A little tap on the window-pane, as though something had struck it, followed by a plentiful light falling sound, as of grains of sand being sprinkled from a window overhead, gradually spreading, intensifying, acquiring a regular rhythm, becoming fluid, sonorous, musical, immeasurable, universal; it was the rain.

Marcel Proust

Today, November 18th, is the anniversary of Marcel Proust’s death in 1922.  If you will look in the column to the right of this post, you will see a badge that says “Nanowrimo participant”.  Nanowrimo stands for National Novel Writing Month, and I have committed myself to the writing of a book.  Part of what I am writing includes a visit from Marcel Proust, who, as you can read below if you so choose, has just esconced himself in our guest bed and is preparing to tell me a story.  In honor of the anniversary of Marcel Proust’s death, I offer this excerpt from my 50,ooo word not-so-magnum opus:

“Francoise now had Marcel propped up in the bed, with pillows and sweaters piled up behind him, and on either side of him, so that he could prop his elbows on them as he ate his croissant and drank his coffee, with the tray on a pillow on his lap.  Francoise stood at the foot of the bed, watching as Marcel finished his croissant and then going to fetch another as he requested.  While she was gone, he lay back on the pillows and closed his eyes.  He looked so much, at the moment, like the photograph taken by Man Ray after Proust had died, of him lying on his death bed with his sunken eyes closed and his nose sharp with skin stretched tight over it, that I was frozen in time, staring at the face I’d never seen in reality and yet- here it was.  He opened his eyes and caught me staring at him.  He smiled.  “Do not worry, Madame,  I will be restored soon.  And then I will begin the story”. 

Man Ray's death photo of Marcel Proust

Ce soir, j’ai décidé de faire à la manière des copines des Pariglottes et de vous proposer l’agenda de mes(nos) futures sorties, d’ici la fin du mois, voire même un peu plus….

Cela dit, et c’est important, Tana et mois restons assez libres, et il n’est pas dit que j’écrive sur tout, d’autant que si c’est décevant… je n’ai pas envie de taper des trucs qui ne m’ont pas plu, sauf si scandale absolu. Non parce que, faut pas pousser mémé, les foutages de gueules, ça me donne envie de ressortir le costume de justicier masqué qui prend la poussière sous le lit…

Alors, j’annonce la couleur : ça va être théâtre, théâtre, et….un peu de musique…D’ailleurs, quand je vois ça, je me dis que je vais peut-être commencer à prendre sérieusement les invitations d’Audinette, qui fait du théâtre “à haut niveau” au sein des 3 coups de l’Eboule et d’autres cours, à me lancer avec elle et à monter sur les planches ?

• Samedi 21 : expo “Paris photo” avec ma pote de Oh My hype. Attention, on annonce du lourd, rien de moins qu’un “panorama de la photographie 19ème, moderne et contemporaine.” Au moins, je serai prévenue, peut-être même que je réviserais mes maigres – voire aériennes – connaissances en la matière avant ? Ou pas…faut pas gâcher la surprise

• Dimanche 22 : La soirée surprise. Ma pote Audinette m’emmène dans une virée surprise pour mon anniversaire, en retour celle que je lui avais faite. Dans les indices que j’ai : une robe à paillettes et une vidéo de Patrick Juvet…Attention, ça va swinguer mais je ne sais pas du tout sur quoi !

• Mercredi 25 : Un Hamlet – Cabaret, au théâtre de l’Europe (Odéon). Les critiques ont l’air assez partagées, mais pour tout vous dire, je ne regarde jamais les critiques avant de prendre des places. Ce qui m’a plu?  Le pari osé d’une mise en scène “cabaret” pour un texte aussi intemporel que classique…A voir si le tout est à la hauteur de sa promesse !

• Dimanche 29 : Les aventures extraordinaires du Baron de Münchausen au théâtre de l’Epée de bois – Cartoucherie. Le baron de Münchausen quoi !…

• Mardi 1er décembre : le concert – déjà annoncé – d’Ed Laurie au Café de la danse avec ma compère Tana ! Il se peut même qu’on soit invitées, ce qui serait notre toute première invitation officielle à une manifestation !

• Dimanche 6 décembre : pour continuer sur Proust justement, une lecture de A la recherche du temps perdu au Théâtre de la Bruyère. Pourquoi ? Tout simplement parce que c’est tellement beau, et que je n’ai jamais eu le courage de m’attaquer à la Recherche dans son ensemble (et pourtant je l’ai chez moi, mais je me dis toujours “Oui, plus tard” quand j’y pense tout court faut dire).

J’ai d’autres idées pour les semaines suivantes, mais ça reste à affiner pour l’instant. Et si vous avez d’autres idées, n’hésitez pas à les laisser dans les commentaires, ou par mail : artyficielles (at) gmail (point) com.

Another exhibit in the chronicles of Gallic Effusiveness, previously addressed here.  This one comes from Proust’s second volume.  The young narrator has been to see the great Berma performing Racine.  It was the realization of a hotly cherished dream, but he was more impressed with the bit parts played by secondary actresses than by Berma herself.  Until, that is, he reads the following review and revises his memory of the experience accordingly:

The performance of Phedre, given this afternoon before an enthusiastic audience which included the foremost representatives of the artistic and critical world, was for Mme Berma, who played the heroine, the occasion of a triumph as brilliant as any that she has known in the course of her phenomenal career…It constituted the purest and most exalted manifestation of dramatic art which it has been the privilege of our generation to witness.

I was surprised to see that Eric Hoffer in his unpublished notebooks (h/t Patrick Kurp) comments on the phenomenon:

It is the Frenchman’s readiness to exaggerate that is at the root of his intellectual lucidity and also of his capacity for acknowledging merit.  The English were not afraid to exaggerate in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and they were then not far behind the French in the lucidity of their thinking… There is hardly a single instance of cultural vigor marked by moderation of expression.

Precisely what Hoffer meant by ‘lucidity,’ I’m not sure.  But if the French have a greater capacity for acknowledging merit it may be because they were relatively less infected by the leprous touch of Calvin, the idolatrous fandoms of whose English disciples were checked by the assurance that even the most accomplished among them were, after all, totally depraved in flesh and spirit.  Hoffer’s date for the decline in English intellectual vigor coincides well enough with the Puritan Revolution.
 
A capacity for sustained enthusiasm may also explain why so many of the English-speaking world’s former celebrities retire to France.  They know that among their Gallic admirers they’ll never have to stoop to touring Indian casinos and small-town community centers for rent money and faint echoes of the adulation they enjoyed in their prime.

Literary mash-ups are hot now, following the publication of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and I don’t want to miss out. My modest proposal is to have Proust meet Mann: Marcel retires to a sanatorium in Davos and becomes a companion of Hans Castorp.

I can foresee a few major objections to this project, so let’s address these first.

Marcel, we know, spends a long time in a sanatorium. Most commentators identify the place as a mental health sanatorium, but the text does not say this explicitly. This idea comes, presumably, from the fact that Proust spent time in a mental sanatorium after the death of his mother. For my purposes, I choose to focus on Proust’s asthma and the need to treat it in a better climate. What better place than a resort-like setting in the Swiss Alps?

Another objection will be about the dramatic action. How do you have any when both protagonists are social mirrors? Marcel and Hans are much better at bringing out responses in others than in driving conversations and social interactions. To keep the action going we will have to introduce a few more characters who Marcel and Hans can interrogate, obsess over and come to understand and dismiss.

I would have Marcel paid a visit by Charlus and Saint-Loup and Hans paid a visit by Mynheer Peeperkorn and Mme. Clavida Chauchat. These characters will provide all the themes needed to fill a fat book.

Marcel is intrigued by Chauchat and spends long hours in conversation with her, each wrapped in blankets and sitting in the cold air on her balcony. From a few casual remarks by Clavida, Marcel learns that she has not only visited Balbec but had met Albertine. She waves off further questions about Albertine, saying she met her only once or twice. Marcel is not so sure she is telling the whole truth. He devises strategies to make her reveal more.

Meanwhile, Charlus is spending a lot of time with Peeperkorn, too much time. What transpires between them is too scandalous to even summarize here. Suffice it to say that Charlus is confirmed in his love of all things German.

Saint-Loup spars with the radical terrorist Jesuit Leo Naphta. Robert gradually loses his composure as Naphta unveils Robert’s virile homosexuality as a symbol of the decline and fall of the West. Saint-Loup shoots Naphta in a fit of rage, but the crime is covered up by Settembrini by staging a fake duel. Saint-Loup departs for Paris to prepare for the looming war.

I think I have taken this far enough for a good writer to take over and flesh out. All I ask is for an acknowledgement (and 1% of the gross from the film adaptation.)

Richard Rorty: If you don't understand him, you probably don't understand "post-modernism" either...

Perhaps you have had an experience like this one:  You are talking with someone about your personal beliefs.   After explaining your story and worldview they respond with something to the effect of, “that is so good for you,” or “I am glad you have that.”

Perhaps you have had another experience like this one:  You are at a church, or a conference, or some other Christian meeting and the speaker has talked about the importance of understanding “post-modernism.”  I have heard some form of this talk probably a dozen times and never has the speaker ever hit the nail on the head.

This blog post will attempt to sort out Evangelicalism’s imprecise analysis of culture and philosophy on the matter of “post-modernism”

Post-modernism “explained”

Post-modernism is a reaction against the arrogance of modernism and the Enlightenment Project.  Modernism and the Enlightenment Project attempted to create a perfect worldview through pure reason alone.  Suffice to say this project was a dismal failure and imploded in the late 19th century.  This created an intellectual vacuum in Western thinking and the main thing that replaced it was an equal and opposite reaction to modernisms’s hubris.  Post-modern thought rejects foundations;  it is skeptical of overarching stories and worldviews; it says that truths are merely local and not universal.  The problem with post-modernism and defining the term is that  post-modernity rejects definitions, rejects categories, rejects foundations, and rejects Truth.  Hence, the philosophy is best understood as a reaction against modernism and requires modernism to exist in the same way a tick requires a host.

All to common example

One such example was a kind 70+ year old professor during my time at seminary.  The man had incredible ministry experience yet was sorely off in his cultural and philosophical analysis.  For several weeks he used modern categories and terms to describe post-modern thought.  The underlying irony was that he was attempting to explain as a slightly modernistic outside observer what an entire class of slightly post-modern inside participants had experienced their whole lives.

What is wrong with the analysis [Besides the face that almost every time anyone says, "Post-modernism is ________," they are being reductionistic... ]

I do not believe we are in a post-modern culture!

I have talked to hundreds of people who have many different worldviews.  I have talked to people in several countries, on three continents (including Western Europe).  Christians love to label “Post-modern” as some kind of catch all.  It is dangerous to assume that post-modernism can be considered a “worldview.”   It is dangerous because it can be best seen as a rejection of worldviews, even though Christians continue to call it a worldview.  Lots of people I talk to are scientific rationalists.  Lots of people I talk to are pragmatists.  Lots of people I talk to are inspired by Eastern thought.  Some of the people I talk to borrow from all of the above – these are the people that we have incorrectly labeled “post-moderns.”  Let me repeat:

Post-modernism is not a stand alone philosophy. Christians have completely mislabeled and misunderstood this philosophical undercurrent.

What you need to be studying is the philosophy of Richard Rorty.

Post-modernism is a critique of modernism and is not a standalone worldview.  However, Richard Rorty took the post-modern skepticism and married it to another philosophy:  pragmatism.  Rorty was a philosophy professor at Yale (1956-57), Army (57-58), Wellesley (58-61), Princeton (61-82), Virginia (82-98), and Stanford (98-2005).  Here is a brief outline of Rorty’s thought:

1.  Propositions are true if they are helpful, and not because they have a one-to-one relationship with facts.

2.  Language is a game, because words are defined by other words, which are defined by other words, which are often defined by the original word in question (heavily borrowing from later Wittgenstein and post-structuralism)

3.  All language is contingent.  There is no link between language and reality.

4.  Therefore, Truth is incoherent and pointless.  No Final Vocabulary exists (Rorty’s way of denying the existence of absolute truth)

5.  The ideal person is the ironist – a person who:  1. skeptical of final vocabulary  2. Argument within ones current vocabulary cannot dissolve such skepticism  3.  As they philosophize about their situation they do not think that their vocabulary is somehow closer to reality than others.  People that have exhibited these traits according to Rorty – Nietzsche, Foucault, Heidegger, Proust, and Derrida.

6.  Final vocabulary leads to cruelty, therefore it must be rejected.

7.  What is true is what works.  What works is what is true.

Richard Rorty has blended post-modernism with pragmatism, in what I call post-modern-pragmatism.    This is what well-meaning Christians have been trying to explain but been unable to have the correct taxonomy.  Is everyone in America a post-modern-pragmatist?  absolutely not (and I am not sure why so many call ‘our culture’ post-modern).  Is there a trend towards the ideas of Rorty in Western Europe and the United States?  In my view, yes.

The tricky thing about post-modern-pragmatism is that it does not need to be true for people to desire it and adhere to it – it merely needs to “work for them.”  Revisiting the conversation I have had countless times from the beginning of this post – these people are espousing the ideas of Richard Rorty.  The whatever-works-for-you worldview is post-modern-pragmatism and not post-modern thought.

Christians have been unable to deconstruct post-modern-pragmatism because they have mislabeled it and been applying the wrong arguments against it.  The glaring weakness in Rorty’s (and any post-structuralist) thinking is that it is still subversively is appealing to Final Vocabulary in order to deconstruct Final Vocabulary.  In other words, his argument is still essentially:

There is no truth, besides this one.

Post-modern-pragmatism is essentially a bait-and-switch.  Worldviews have always been judged on two criteria:  is it true?  AND  does it work?  Rorty attempted to make those two separate questions, one single question by defining the two terms circularly as being synonymous with the other.  It is a diabolical yet ultimately silly philosophy.  The reason it is so powerful is that people employ this philosophy to justify their mutually exclusive beliefs and sin.  When confronted with the fact that they hold mutually exclusive beliefs they respond, “that’s ok, it works for me.”

I believe the central reason why evangelicals have missed the target by so far on “post-modernism” is because evangelicals are intellectually lazy.  Further, this laziness is always seeking to pigeon hole the many ideas and many cultures of a massive country into a really small box that they can then apply assembly line tools to fix (modernism still rears its ugly head in the evangelical).  Moving forward, evangelicals need to be more precise and more rigorous in understanding cultural and philosophical trends and ideas.  Up next  we will examine how evangelicals have done this, why they have done it, and what we need to do instead.

(if you care to read Rorty for yourself, the best summary of his thought is his book Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity)

Dalam tulisan ini, kita akan mempelajari tentang beberapa hukum dasar yang berlaku dalam menyelesaiakan soal-soal perhitungan kimia. Selain itu, kita juga akan membahas penerapan konsep mol, stoikiometri, dan hukum dasar kimia dalam menentukan jumlah produk yang dihasilkan serta jumlah reaktan yang dibutuhkan dalam reaksi kimia.

Pada tulisan sebelumnya (lihat : Konsep Mol dan Hukum Dasar Kimia), kita telah mempelajari aturan yang berlaku dalam penyelesaian soal perhitungan kimia. Pada tulisan ini, kita akan mempelajari empat hukum dasar yang berlaku dalam perhitungan kimia. Berikut adalah penjelasan masing-masing hukum dasar kimia :

1. Hukum Kekekalan Massa (Hukum Lavoisier)

“massa zat sebelum reaksi sama dengan massa zat setelah reaksi”

Contoh :

S_(s) +  O_2(g) →  SO_2(g)

1 mol S bereaksi dengan 1 mol O₂ membentuk 1 mol SO_2. 32 gram S bereaksi dengan 32 gram O₂ membentuk 64 gram SO₂. Massa total reaktan sama dengan massa produk yang dihasilkan.

H_2(g) +  ½ O_2(g) →  H₂O_(l)

1 mol H₂ bereaksi dengan ½ mol O₂ membentuk 1 mol H₂O. 2 gram H₂ bereaksi dengan 16 gram O₂ membentuk 18 gram H₂O. Massa total reaktan sama dengan massa produk yang terbentuk.

2. Hukum Perbandingan Tetap (Hukum Proust)

“perbandingan massa unsur-unsur pembentuk senyawa selalu tetap, sekali pun dibuat dengan cara yang berbeda”

Contoh :

S_(s) +  O_2(g) →  SO_2(g)

Perbandingan massa S terhadap massa O₂ untuk membentuk SO₂ adalah 32 gram S berbanding 32 gram O₂ atau 1 : 1. Hal ini berarti, setiap satu gram S tepat bereaksi dengan satu gram O₂ membentuk 2 gram SO₂. Jika disediakan 50 gram S, dibutuhkan 50 gram O₂ untuk membentuk 100 gram SO₂.

H_2(g) +  ½ O_2(g) →  H₂O_(l)

Perbandingan massa H₂ terhadap massa O₂ untuk membentuk H₂O adalah 2 gram H₂ berbanding 16 gram gram O₂ atau 1 : 8. Hal ini berarti, setiap satu gram H₂ tepat bereaksi dengan 8 gram O₂ membentuk 9 gram H₂O. Jika disediakan 24 gram O₂, dibutuhkan 3 gram H₂ untuk membentuk 27 gram H₂O.

3. Hukum Perbandingan Volume (Hukum Gay Lussac)

Hanya berlaku pada reaksi kimia yang melibatkan fasa gas

“pada suhu dan tekanan yang sama, perbandingan volume gas pereaksi dengan volume gas hasil reaksi merupakan bilangan bulat dan sederhana (sama dengan perbandingan koefisien reaksinya)”

Contoh :

N_2(g) +  3 H_2(g) →  2 NH_3(g)

Perbandingan volume gas sama dengan perbandingan koefisien reaksinya. Hal ini berarti, setiap 1 mL gas N₂ tepat bereaksi dengan 3 mL gas H₂ membentuk 2 mL gas NH₃. Dengan demikian, untuk memperoleh 50 L gas NH₃, dibutuhkan 25 L gas N₂ dan 75 L gas H₂.

CO_(g) +  H₂O_(g) →  CO_2(g) +  H_2(g)

Perbandingan volume gas sama dengan perbandingan koefisien reaksinya. Hal ini berarti, setiap 1 mL gas CO tepat bereaksi dengan 1 mL gas H₂O membentuk 1 mL gas CO₂ dan 1 mL gas H₂. Dengan demikian, sebanyak 4 L gas CO membutuhkan 4 L gas H₂O untuk membentuk 4 L gas CO₂ dan 4 L gas H₂.

4. Hukum Avogadro

Hanya berlaku pada reaksi kimia yang melibatkan fasa gas

“pada suhu dan tekanan yang sama, gas-gas yang volumenya sama mengandung jumlah mol yang sama”

Hukum Avogadro berkaitan erat dengan Hukum Gay Lussac

Contoh :

N_2(g) +  3 H_2(g) →  2 NH_3(g)

Perbandingan mol sama dengan perbandingan koefisien reaksinya. Hal ini berarti, setiap 1 mol gas N₂ tepat bereaksi dengan 3 mol gas H₂ membentuk 2 mol gas NH₃. Perbandingan volume gas sama dengan perbandingan koefisien reaksinya. Hal ini berarti, setiap 1 L gas N₂ tepat bereaksi dengan 3 L gas H₂ membentuk 2 L gas NH₃. Dengan demikian, jika pada suhu dan tekanan tertentu, 1 mol gas setara dengan 1 L gas, maka 2 mol gas setara dengan 2 L gas. Dengan kata lain, perbandingan mol gas sama dengan perbandingan volume gas.

Berikut ini diberikan beberapa contoh soal serta penyelesaian perhitungan kimia yang menggunakan hukum-hukum dasar kimia :

1. Serbuk kalsium sejumlah 20 gram (Ar Ca = 40) direaksikan dengan 20 gram belerang (Ar S = 32) sesuai dengan persamaan reaksi Ca + S → CaS. Zat apakah yang tersisa setelah reaksi selesai?Berapa massa zat yang tersisa setelah reaksi selesai?

Penyelesaian :

Perbandingan mol Ca terhadap S adalah 1 : 1. Hal ini berarti, setiap 40 gram Ca tepat bereaksi dengan 32 gram S membentuk 72 gram CaS. Perbandingan massa Ca terhadap S adalah 40 : 32 = 5 : 4.

Jika 20 gram S tepat habis bereaksi, dibutuhkan (5/4) x 20 = 25 gram Ca, untuk membentuk 45 gram CaS. Sayangnya, jumlah Ca yang disediakan tidak mencukupi.

Oleh karena itu, 20 gram Ca akan tepat habis bereaksi. Massa S yang diperlukan sebesar (4/5) x 20 gram = 16 gram. Dengan demikian, zat yang tersisa adalah belerang (S). Massa belerang yang tersisa adalah 20-16=4 gram.

2. Gas A₂ sebanyak 10 mL tepat habis bereaksi dengan 15 mL gas B₂ membentuk 10 mL gas A_xB_y pada suhu dan tekanan yang sama. Berapakah nilai x dan y?

Penyelesaian :

Perbandingan volume gas A₂ terhadap gas B₂ dan gas A_xB_y adalah 10 mL : 15 mL : 10 mL = 2 : 3 : 2. Perbandingan volume gas sama dengan perbandingan koefisien reaksinya. Dengan demikian, persamaan reaksi menjadi :

2 A_2(g) +  3 B_2(g) → 2 A_xB_y

Nilai x = 2 dan nilai y = 3.

3. Gas amonia dapat dibuat dengan mereaksikan 100 mL gas nitrogen dan 150 mL gas hidrogen dengan reaksi N_2(g) +  3 H_2(g) →  2 NH_3(g). Hitunglah volume gas amonia yang dihasilkan pada akhir reaksi!

Penyelesaian :

Perbandingan volume gas N₂ terhadap gas H₂ dan NH₃ sama dengan perbandingan koefisien reaksinya, yaitu 1 : 3 : 2.

Jika 100 ml gas N₂ tepat habis bereaksi, dibutuhkan 300 mL gas H₂. Sayangnya, jumlah gas H₂ yang disediakan tidak mencukupi.

Dengan demikian, 150 mL H₂ lah yang tepat habis bereaksi. Volume gas N₂ yang dibutuhkan sebesar (1/3) x 150 mL = 50 mL. Setelah reaksi selesai, masih tersisa 50 mL gas N₂. Volume gas NH₃ yang dihasilkan adalah sebesar (2/3) x 150 mL = 100 mL.

4. Pada suhu dan tekanan tertentu, sebanyak 0,5 L gas hidrogen (Ar H = 1) memiliki massa sebesar 0,05 gram. Berapakah volume gas oksigen yang dapat dihasilkan jika sebanyak 12,25 gram padatan KClO₃ dipanaskan? (Mr KClO₃ = 122,5)

Penyelesaian :

mol H₂ =  gram / Mr  =  0,05 / 2  =  0,025 mol

Persamaan reaksi pemanasan KClO₃ adalah sebagai berikut :

KClO_3(s) →  KCl_(s) +  3/2 O_2(g)

mol KClO₃ = gram / Mr  = 12,25 / 122,5 = 0,1 mol

Dengan demikian, mol O₂ = (3/2) x 0,1 mol = 0,15 mol

Pada suhu dan tekanan yang sama, Hukum Avogadro berlaku pada sistem gas. Perbandingan mol gas sama dengan perbandingan volume gas. Dengan demikian :

mol H₂ :  mol O₂ =  volume H₂ :  volume O­₂

0,025 : 0,15 =  0,5 : volume O₂

Volume O₂ = ( 0,15 x 0,5) / 0,025  =  3 L

5. Suatu campuran gas terdiri atas 2 mol gas N₂O₃ dan 4 mol gas NO. Jika campuran gas ini terurai sempurna menjadi gas nitrogen dan gas oksigen, berapakah perbandingan volume gas nitrogen terhadap gas hidrogen dalam campuran tersebut?

Penyelesaian :

Persamaan reaksi penguraian masing-masing gas adalah sebagai berikut :

N₂O_3(g) →  N_2(g) +  3/2 O_2(g)

NO_(g) →  ½ N_2(g) +  ½ O_2(g)

Sebanyak 2 mol gas N₂O₃ akan terurai dan menghasilkan 2 mol gas N₂ dan 3 mol gas O₂. Sementara itu, sebanyak 4 mol gas NO akan terurai dan menghasilkan 2 mol gas N₂ dan 2 mol gas O₂.

Dengan demikian, mol total gas N₂ yang terbentuk adalah 2 + 2 = 4 mol N₂. Mol total gas O₂ yang terbentuk adalah 3 + 2 = 5 mol O₂. Perbandingan mol gas sama dengan perbandingan volume gas. Jadi, perbandingan volume gas nitrogen terhadap gas hidrogen dalam campuran tersebut adalah 4 : 5.

Referensi:

Andy. 2009. Pre-College Chemistry.

Chang, Raymond. 2007. Chemistry Ninth Edition. New York: Mc Graw Hill.

Moore, John T. 2003. Kimia For Dummies. Indonesia: Pakar Raya.

La obsesión por los olores de Jean-Baptiste Grenouille convirtió al protagonista de la novela El Perfume en un personaje antológico y a partir de sus sensaciones, el escritor alemán Patrick Suskin pretendió de forma implícita dejarnos un tratado sobre el tema.

Recuerdo todavía cómo la actitud demencial de Grenouille terminó por transmitirse a la vida real. En lo personal me tomó más de un mes quitarme la pesadilla de anhelar distinguir los olores a cada paso, aunque era difícil igualar a la figura ideada por Suskin.

Hay sensaciones nasales que se antojan proclives al gusto, pero no era el caso de Grenouille, -apellido que en francés quiere decir rana- inodoro en si mismo y enloquecido por crear esencias apetecibles para ser devorado.

Aunque son muchas las distancias, se asemejaba un tanto al relato de Marcel Proust a partir de la magdalena con una taza de té, o al revivir otros momentos de su vida a partir del paladar y el olfato.

Más allá de apuestas y reflexiones, la ciencia está convencida cada vez más de las propuestas amorosas a través de uno de los sentidos menos valorado. Son una suerte de perfumes aventureros, que no existen ni siquiera en las reputadas Boutiques de París.

Cuando se entabla una relación hombre-mujer, casi nunca los pretendientes prestan demasiada atención a los olores. La higiene, el porte, la elegancia de los gestos y la profundidad en el diálogo, son elementos primordiales para agradar al interlocutor.

Sin embargo, un estudio realizado por el profesor Luis Monti-Bloch, de la Universidad de Utah, Estados Unidos, intenta demostrar que en última instancia, la percepción de los aromas que emanan del sistema inmune del ser humano decide la elección de la pareja.

Dicho en otras palabras, el conocido beso esquimal no es sólo el roce de las narices, sino también una olfateada mutua.

“El sentido de la vista y el olor interactúan e influyen en gran medida en la atracción que sienten dos personas”, asegura el investigador francés Pierre Bertrand.

Para abundar en la teoría, pongamos los elementos que aporta el equipo de científicos de la Universidad de Cardiff y la Sociedad Max Plank.

Afirma haber encontrado en un estudio con peces espinosos (Gasterosteus aculeatus), que los machos con olor corporal particularmente atractivo para las hembras producen pequeños fragmentos de proteínas (conocidos como “péptidos”).

Para probar esto, los investigadores produjeron un “perfume sintético” que contenía una mezcla de péptidos. Manipulando la combinación de éstos en el perfume, el atractivo sexual de los machos podría ser aumentado. En el experimento, ninguna de las hembras podría ver a los machos.

El resultado fue sorprendente y no pocos hombres despechados quisieran aplicar la fórmula en su piel. Pero no se puede, porque no son peces.

Imagínense, los machos previamente rechazados por las hembras se volvieron irresistibles después de que el perfume sintético les fuera aplicado.

—¡Tranquilos!. Hay esperanzas—
Según la doctora Sian Griffiths, de la Escuela de Biociencias de Cardiff, si los peces espinosos usan las mismas moléculas para comunicar información acerca de su sistema inmunológico que emplean otros vertebrados, este experimento podría extenderse a muchas especies animales, ¡INCLUYENDO A LOS HUMANOS!.

“Los humanos hemos usado perfumes desde hace miles de años. Sin embargo, parece que nuestra elección del aroma depende de nuestros genes MHC. Quizá estos resultados explican por qué algunos perfumes huelen bien en algunas personas y mal en otras, dice la Dra. Griffiths.

Durante mucho tiempo se pensó que el ser humano carecía de feromonas y que solo las tribus primitivas le concedían importancia al olor corporal. No existían los dos pequeños hoyos (uno en cada fosa nasal) llamados órganos vormeronasales capaces de entender el significado de las esencias que emite el cuerpo.

El equipo investigador de la Universidad de Utah utilizando los más sofisticados microscopios, descubrió el famoso órgano en cada fosa nasal del hombre.

Al mismo tiempo, determinó que las glándulas apocrinas –que forman parte de las sudoríparas- son una gran fuente de esa sustancia y por lo tanto se puede creer en la emisión de feromonas de los humanos.

Los científicos se quejan de la poca atención que se le presta al olfato, no obstante su enorme relevancia. Y para confirmarlo, recuerdan que el 90 por ciento del sabor de un alimento proviene de su olor.

El paladar sirve para determinar entre salados, dulces, amargos, ácidos y agridulces. Entonces, volvemos con lo mismo, el olor es el efecto determinante para la atracción entre sexos y si se inventara aquella esencia mágica de Grenouille (…) uffff!!!

Existe un segmento del ADN denominado Complejo de Histocompatibilidad Fundamental (CHF), también conocido como Código Principal, que funciona como los ojos del sistema inmune. “Los animales lo hacen de forma extrovertida, mientras los humanos olfatean instintivamente”, señalan los científicos.

Expertos británicos, franceses y norteamericanos admiten que por ahora el aroma del sistema inmune es una suerte de misterio. Las manos, las mejillas, el cuero cabelludo son los centros de emisión de feromonas y los causantes principales de que sea en verdad la nariz y no el corazón el que se enamora.

Wydano właśnie czwarty – o ile dobrze liczę – tom esejów Michała Pawła Markowskiego, zatytułowany Życie na miarę literatury. Pierwszą, bardziej teoretyczną część książki, omawiam krótko poniżej; do drugiej, w której występują m.in. Marek Bieńczyk, Witold Gombrowicz, Franz Kafka, Fernando Pessoa, Marcel Proust i Witkacy – po prostu odsyłam, bo zapewniać o klasie esejów chyba nie muszę.

Jak oznajmia autor, książka jest swego rodzaju manifestem. Markowski tłumaczy, czym jest według niego (i dla niego) literatura i jaką spełnia rolę w codziennym życiu. Nie jest  bowiem tak, że nie pełni ona żadnej roli, albo istnieje tylko na marginesie. Markowski twierdzi, że życie bez literatury po prostu nie ma sensu. Ów sens „nie rośnie na polu, nie spoczywa w głębi oceanu i nie buja się na chmurach”, lecz jest mozolnie budowany w trakcie lektury, rozmowy z Innym. Obcowanie z literaturą jest takim sposobem egzystencji, któremu najbliżej do odnalezienia zagubionego sensu. Wejdźmy zatem, wraz z autorem, na grunt hermeneutyki.

Na początek, dla rozgrzewki, Markowski przypomina o dwóch modelach postrzegania literatury – klasycznym i awangardowym. Ten pierwszy zasadza się na micie i poczuciu wspólnoty, drugi zaś wręcz przeciwnie: na demitologizacji i emancypacji; model klasyczny zakłada, że „literatura to nasze wspólne dziedzictwo, wspólny dom” w którym chcielibyśmy zamieszkać, model awangardowy odwrotnie – chce zerwać z tym, co wspólne, z językiem ogółu i jego przyzwyczajeniami. Następstwem tego podziału jest wytworzenie się przeciwstawnych ujęć poezji: hermetyczne i hermeneutyczne.

Poezja hermetyczna, „czysta”, stara się oderwać od rzeczywistości i zakotwiczyć wyłącznie w języku; „wiersz powinien nie znaczyć, lecz być”.  Model hermeneutyczny z kolei próbuje „uczynić swoim własnym” to, co wcześniej było „obce”; jest to „poezja przyswojenia”. Mamy zatem, kontynuuje Markowski, dwie postawy wobec świata – eskapistyczną, kiedy uciekamy od niego na zawsze, oraz taką, która zakłada jednak powrót, i podobnie sztuka nowoczesna ma dwie drogi ku artystycznemu spełnieniu – hermetyczną i hermeneutyczną.

Drogę „hermetyczną” przetarł św. Augustyn, który dzięki lekturze ksiąg oderwał się od rzeczywistości, zmienił swoje życie i zwrócił ku Bogu. Markowski podkreśla, że w nawróceniu Augustyna najważniejszy był moment, kiedy święty oddał się bezgłośnej lekturze – tym sposobem odciął się od świata zewnętrznego, rozdzielił ciało i umysł. Bezpośrednim kontynuatorem poczynań Augustyna jest, zdaniem Markowskiego, S. Mallarmé, który pokazał, że „poezja jest wielką pracą nad negacją – transpozycją, transfiguracją – codziennego doświadczenia”.  Kolejną przywoływaną postacią jest T. S. Eliot, ale nie miejsce tutaj na referowanie całej książki krok po kroku; wspomnę więc tylko, że druga ścieżka to zadziwienie światem i próba jego wytłumaczenia; to poezja metafizyczna, np. Miłosza, która stara się świat tłumaczyć.

Markowski nie decyduje się na żadną z omawianych dróg, wybiera coś pomiędzy:

„Moja wizja literatury (…) polega na uznaniu egzystencjalnego wahania za najważniejszy i najciekawszy motyw literacki, który wszelako nie jest żadnym <<motywem>>, lecz mechanizmem napędzającym pisanie i czytanie”.

W wizji tej niezwykle ważna jest kategoria „rozumienia”, pożyczona od Gadamera; równie istotną rolę odgrywa uczuciowa, erotyczna perspektywa Barthesa i pragnienie zaprzyjaźnienia się z tekstem; ostatnim patronem jest wreszcie Richard Rorty, który pisał: „powieści sprawiają, że wiemy, jak ludzie, którzy się od nas całkiem różnią, myślą o sobie samych, jak obmyślają swoje działania, by wypaść w dobrym świetle, jak nadają sens własnemu życiu (…) Być człowiekiem bardziej wykształconym, rozwiniętym i wyrafinowanym to umieć uchwycić większość  z tych potrzeb i rozumieć większość z tych opisów”.

Lubię czytać Markowskiego, pewnie dlatego, że i mnie bliskie jest hermeneutyczne czytanie spod znaku Gadamera czy Ricoeura, przyjemność, którą przywrócił lekturze Barthes i pragmatyczne szturchańce Rorty’ego. Lubię swobodę, z jaką żegluje po morzu tekstów. Najcenniejsze z tej lektury wydaje się jednak przeświadczenie, że literaturę można kochać i nie można się tego wstydzić.

Je lis régulièrement le « flogomètre » du blog « Flogging the Quill » : un auteur soumet au blogueur le premier chapitre de son manuscrit. Le blogueur se met alors à la place d’un éditeur type : il est huit heures du soir, j’ai encore une pile de manuscrits à lire, j’ouvre le tien, je lis la première page, ai-je envie de la tourner pour lire la suite ?

Si oui, le blogueur fait des compliments précis. Dans le cas contraire, il donne des critiques constructives.

Souvent, en lisant les conseils prodigués, je me demande comment le blogueur aurait réagi face à Marcel Proust.

Marcel Proust qui a reçu ce refus bien senti d’Alfred Humblot, directeur d’Ollendorf, au moment où il démarchait les éditeurs : « Je suis peut-être bouché à l’émeri, mais je ne puis comprendre qu’un monsieur puisse employer trente pages à décrire comment il se tourne et se retourne dans son lit avant de trouver le sommeil. »

Non, la grande mode actuelle du début dans le vif de l’action n’aurait sans doute pas été favorable à Marcel Proust. Sa description des salons mondains et son attention portée au moindre détail, révélateur des êtres et des différences de classe, aurait sans doute été mal vue, et que dire de ce narrateur aimant une femme qui est visiblement un jeune garçon ? Non, ce genre de transposition aurait été jugé comme une stratégie d’évitement des plus malvenues.

Pourtant, j’ai l’impression que les lecteurs assidus de Proust constituent comme une sorte de chapelle. Il y a ceux qui ont lu A la recherche du temps perdu, qui sourient quand on la cite, et ceux qui ne la connaissent pas. Ce n’est pas vraiment une question de snobisme, mais presque de religion.

En effet, les péripéties survenant dans ce roman gigantesque, s’ils ont l’air quotidiens (le narrateur marche dans les rues en revenant d’un dîner chez les Guermantes, il est couché et attend qu’Albertine vienne le rejoindre, etc.), prennent un tel relief qu’ils deviennent les éléments d’une messe : comme chaque célébration religieuse suit un chemin immuable et semé d’étapes du rituel, la lecture de Proust déroule ses péripéties, chacune porteuse d’une révélation.

Det är viktigt att jag inte glömmer projekt läsa-åtminstone-endel-Proust-på-franska; apropå tidigare På spaning-citat:

“Car bien des années ont passé depuis Combray, où, dans nos retours les plus tardifs, c’était les reflets rouges du couchant que je voyais sur le vitrage de ma fenêtre. C’est un autre genre de vie qu’on mène à Tansonville, chez Mme de Saint-Loup, un autre genre de plaisir que je trouve à ne sortir qu’à la nuit, à suivre au clair de lune ces chemins où je jouais jadis au soleil; et la chambre où je me serai endormi au lieu de m’habiller pour le dîner, de loin je l’aperçois, quand nous rentrons, traversée par les feux de la lampe, seul phare dans la nuit.”

[x]

Bonuslänk: Germaine Greer – Why do people gush over Proust? I’d rather visit a demented relative (“But it* is damnable in its fake heterosexual voyeurism, and its disparaging and dishonest account of homosexuality.”)

* På spaning-sviten

“Många år har förflutit sedan tiden i Combray, då vi aldrig kom så sent hem att jag inte såg aftonrodnaden avspegla sig i mina fönsterrutor. Hos Madame de Saint-Loup på Tansonville för man ett helt annat liv, och mina egna glädjeämnen har också förändrats, ty nu vill jag inte längre gå ut annat än efter mörkrets inbrott; det är i månens ljus jag följer de vägar på vilka jag förr lekte i solskenet, och lampan i det rum där jag skall somna istället för att klä om mig till middagen lyser emot mig på hemvägen som en enslig fyrbåk i mörkret.”

“Swanns värld” s. 12, inbunden utgåva 1964

* Maurice Barrès till Jacques Emile Blanche, 1912.

This window installation explores the prose of Marcel Proust in the visual style of the Futurists. It uses multi layered colour and transparency to create depth and movement. Difficult to envisage on flat screen but you can see it for yourself when the installation is completed early 2010. Til then here’s a short animation (3rd thumbnail)…