SERENDIPITY

Marilyn Armstrong — Seeking Intelligent Life on Earth

Tag Archives: Wikipedia


by 13 Comments

Prompts for the Promptless – What’s A Litmus?

Does anyone remember for what litmus paper actually tests?

From the ubiquitous source of all knowledge and frequent misinformation — Wikipedia — comes this enlightening but incomplete (please feel free to conduct your own research) definition:

Litmus is a water-soluble mixture of different dyes extracted from lichens, especially Roccella tinctoria. It is often absorbed onto filter paper to produce one of the oldest forms of pH indicator, used to test materials for acidity. Blue litmus paper turns red under acidic conditions and red litmus paper turns blue under basic (alkaline) conditions, with the color change occurring over the pH range 4.5-8.3 at 25 °C. Neutral litmus paper is purple. Litmus can also be prepared as an aqueous solution that functions similarly. Under acidic conditions the solution is red, and under basic conditions the solution is blue.

I’ve yet to determine the “litmus test” for Freshly Pressed. Whatever it is, I have flunked. I don’t measure up. Not clever enough? More clever than socially acceptable? Overly sarcastic? Insufficiently witty? Excessively eclectic? Irrelevant? Too topical? Too vague? Too pointed? Unable to follow simple directions? Failure to be a team player?

“Marilyn does not play well with others. She runs with scissors.”

I hade my face because I cannot bear the shame. Oh the horror!

I hide my face because I cannot bear the shame. Oh the horror!

Too many typos? Ouch.

“I plead guilty, your honor,” she said sadly, baring her soul for punishment. “I just don’t see them. I am a pathetic failure, dishonored, disgraced. Tear off my buttons. Break my sword. Rip the epaulettes from my shoulders. I deserve no less. Pass the yellow feather of shame.”

Despite the deep anxiety engendered by my un-freshly pressableness, I keep writing. Doggedly and with determination. Sometimes I’m so dogged I write about dogs.

As for litmus testing, I’m pretty sure I have a pH. If an actual litmus test were applied, I would definitely pass. Everything and everyone passes a litmus test because … (drumroll, trumpets) … you can’t fail a litmus test. There’s no correct answer and no passing grade. (Throw that bum out! His pH is way too low!) If my mother was any kind of judge, I’m too acidic, though there are days when I feel distinctly alkaline. I think this is one of those days.

Since I have recovered from my brief fling at being young, I have many opinions, but I don’t test. I have standards. Does that count? I don’t hang with racists. I don’t argue with stupid people by which I mean those delightful, heartwarming folks who combine blissful ignorance with strong opinions. I suppose there are a few other points, political, intellectual and social (don’t chew with your mouth open), but there’s no test. I like’em or I don’t. As with books and movies, I like what I like and don’t know why. Shameful. 

I don’t necessarily believe anything or anybody except my husband. He is an epic truth-sayer. If you ask him if that dress looks good on you, I hope you really want the answer. Because he is going to tell you. He will tell you with grace, charm and tact, but tell you he will.

I’m not litmus-test friendly. Worse, I’m completely out of touch with whatever is au courant. I wouldn’t know what to test for, much less whether or not someone passed, failed or whatever.

Does that make me a loser? Or, to put it in Facebook-ese, a LOOSER? I’ll bet my problem is I do not allow having nothing to say stop me from saying it anyhow. That’s gotta be it!

Tighten up, bitch. Get your act together! No looseness! Stand up straight! Button that uniform! Yes SIR!! Maybe if I get really tight, I’ll be Fresh enough to be Pressable!

Related articles


by 7 Comments

The Barrymores: Show Business’ Royal Family

220px-John_Barrymore_Hamlet_1922This evening, Robert Osborne had Drew Barrymore on doing the introduction to Tootsie, the 1982 Sidney Pollack masterpiece starring Dustin Hoffman, Bill Murray and Jessica Lange. Her face has changed since I saw her last … and I realized that she now, at last, really looks like a Barrymore. That’s no small thing because she is this generation’s only representative of what is the longest running act in show business.

The Family

  1. Herbert Arthur Chamberlayne Blyth (aka Maurice Barrymore)
  2. ∞ married Georgiana Emma Drew, and had three children: Lionel, Ethel, and John.
    1. Lionel Barrymore
      1. ∞ Married Doris Rankin (first wife), and had two daughters. Marriage ended in divorce.
        1. Mary Barrymore (died at infancy)
        2. Ethel Barrymore II (died at infancy).
      2. ∞ Married to Irene Fenwick (second wife, until her death)
    2. Ethel Barrymore
      1. ∞ Married Russell Griswold Colt, and had three children. Ethel’s children also acted, primarily on the stage.
        1. Samuel Peabody Colt
        2. John Drew Colt
        3. Ethel Barrymore Colt. ∞ Married John Romeo Miglietta, and had John Drew Miglietta (born 10 September 1946)
    3. John Barrymore
      1. ∞ Married to Katherine Corri Harris (first wife, divorced)
      2. ∞ Married Blanche Oelrichs (second wife, divorced), and had:
        1. Diana Blanche Barrymore
          1. ∞ Married Bramwell Fletcher
          2. ∞ Married John R. Howard
          3. ∞ Married Robert Wilcox
      3. ∞ Married Dolores Costello (third wife, divorced), and had:
        1. Dolores Ethel Mae Barrymore (living).
          1. ∞ Married Thomas Fairbanks (first husband, divorced) and had a daughter Hillary Klaradru Fairbanks (living), who ∞ married Thomas Randolph and had a daughter Isabelle Harrison Barrymore Randolph. Also she had a son Anthony John Barrymore Fairbanks who ∞ married Dianne Zaninovich and had a daughter Samantha Mae Barrymore Fairbanks.
          2. ∞ Married Lew Bedell (second husband) and had two children Dore Lewis Bedell and Stephanie Mae Bedell
        2. John Drew Barrymore (Jr.)
          1. ∞ Married Cara Williams (first wife, divorced)
            1. John Blyth Barrymore
              1. ∞ Married Rebecca Pogrow
                1. Blyth Lane Barrymore
                2. Sabrina Brooke Barrymore
              2. ∞ Married Jacqueline Manes
                1. John Blyth Barrymore IV
          2. ∞ Married Gabriella Palazzoli (second wife, divorced)
            1. Blyth Dolores Barrymore. ∞ Married Antonio Gioffredi and had two children Gabriella Gioffredi and Nicole Gioffredi
          3. ∞ Married Nina Wayne (third wife, divorced)
            1. Jessica Barrymore
          4. ∞ Married Ildiko Jaid (fourth wife, divorced)
            1. Drew Barrymore
              1. ∞ Married Jeremy Thomas (first husband, divorced)
              2. ∞ Married Tom Green (second husband, divorced)
              3. ∞ Married Will Kopelman (third husband)
                1. Olive Barrymore Kopelman
      4. ∞ Married to Elaine Barrie née Jacobs. (fourth wife of John Barrymore, Sr., divorced)

Except for John Drew, Diana, Drew, and John Blyth, none of the other members of John Barrymore‘s family have yet entered the entertainment industry.

Louisa Lane Drew 1840-48

Louisa Lane Drew 1840-48

Drew’s family

Family of Georgiana Emma Drew, mother of Lionel, Ethel, and John, also quit acting.

  1. John Drew, actor
  2. ∞ Louisa Lane Drew, actress
    1. Georgiana Emma Drew, ∞ wife of Maurice Barrymore and mother of Lionel, Ethel, and John.
    2. John Drew Jr.
      1. Louise Drew, ∞ married performer Jack Devereaux; their son John Drew Devereaux was a Broadway stage manager
    3. Sidney Drew, known for the Mr. & Mrs. Sidney Drew comedy act
      1. Sidney Rankin Drew, left his acting career to join the Lafayette Escadrille, and was killed in action
    4. Louisa Drew, actress

There are several families that have two or three generations of actors and a couple of families for three or more generations of directors, but only one that’s been on first stage and then screen for more than 100 years and that is the royal family of the theatre, the Barrymores.

The conversation was originally between Garry and I, wondering how many genuine acting dynasties we could think of that had at least three generations in which a minimum of one member in each generation has done something noteworthy as a performer.

-dynasties_01

The conversation started when we noticed a Capra listed as a crew member of an NCIS episode and he wondered if this was a fourth generation of Capras. There was a Frank Capra I, II and III, so it most likely is the same family. However, they are all directors. No actors. So they don’t count in this particular equation.

If you want to play movie trivia with Garry, you play by his rules. He declared that in order to count as a generation, an actor has to have “made a mark,” that is, must have done something that in Garry’s opinion counts, eliminating families like the Osbournes which probably should be eliminated on principle anyhow. Reality shows, no matter how popular, do not count. Don’t argue with Garry about this. You will lose.

This kind of genealogical research gets a lot more complicated than you might expect because the members of these dynasties marry each other, divorce each other, have children by each other and a variety of other partners too. Then there are the adopted and step children of everybody’s former marriages. It gets really hard to keep track.

barrymore-family-tree

There are not nearly as many families as you think. There are many two generation families, a handful of three generation families — and only one family that has more than three generations.

Chaplin @ Barrymore Theatre on Broadway

Of this great family, Drew is only significant working member and its current representative. But there are other members of the family and though they aren’t acting, it doesn’t mean their offspring won’t enter the family business. It’s one Hell of a legacy to live up to. Talk about pressure.

If you want to see the other families or at least most of them — whoever put together the Wikipedia entry left out a bunch of British families (you can look them up; just Google “multi-generational acting families”) , this link will take you to an alphabetical list of show business families. The intricacies of the marriages, divorces and resulting complex relationships will make your head spin.

The Barrymore family reigns. No other family comes near the prominence or longevity of this family of actors.

The Wikipedia entry on the Barrymore family tree includes actors and non-actors. There are quite a few family members who are not in show business. The acting family members are in blue. Most of the Barrymores  married no more than once or twice, so it’s an easier to track them than some other families.

-

Related articles


by 6 Comments

The meaning of life in 1200 words or less

We spend too much time trying to figure out what life means. Why bad stuff happens. Whether or not a malevolent deity has it in for us. It’s normal to wonder if the reason you are sick, broke or miserable is the result of something you did or failed to do. To accept the total randomness of life is a pretty tough piece of gristle to chew.

Like you, I’ve put a good bit of thought into how come my life has fallen apart not once, but a several times. I know I’m not perfect, but come on! It’s not like I ripped off everyone’s retirement money or slaughtered thousands of people because I think they are ethnically inferior. Whatever I’ve done wrong, it’s pretty small potatoes in the scheme of things.

I was already pondering this stuff when I was a teenager, which is why I studied it in college and kept exploring it through the decades since. One day, I woke up to the truth. Not big T truth, but my own little truth. All was revealed. An epiphany, the dawning of light.

I know nothing!

Wow. Suddenly random happenstance is as meaningful as anything. What a relief to realize I don’t need an explanation for life. It just happens. I spent a lifetime walking in a circle, but now I am comfortable having neither expertise nor authority. Just like when I was 12. I’ve been considering founding a church. I could enlist a lot of followers . My church  would require no beliefs, contributions of time or money, or even attendance. No rules to follow, nothing to live up to, no possibility of failure. It would ideally suit the modern lifestyle, don’t you think?

Welcome to seeking wisdom.

Faith and Proof

Faith is not proof; it’s opinion in fancy clothing.

You can believe what you want, but you can’t know any more than I do. You take the same leap of faith believing in God or declaring yourself an atheist. Both positions require you take as absolute something for which you have no proof and for which you can never have proof. If believing in a loving God makes your world feel rational, that’s good. It could be true. If it turns out you’re right, you’ll have backed a winner. If believing there is no God, and science is the path to Truth, go with that. Regardless, you’re  making a faith-based choice because there’s no proof God exists or doesn’t exist.

As for me, I don’t know; I stand firmly behind my refusal to take a stand.

Accepting you know nothing is a big step, so the next issue to tackle is how can you can cash in on your new understanding. What’s the point in knowing the meaning of life unless you can awe people with your brilliance? But no one is going to be dazzled unless you know the right words.

Learn Big Words

Big words (4 or more syllables) if used in an appropriate setting, can showcase your education and intelligence. People will make little cooing sounds indicating their admiration for you. This will help you get lucky. Employing big words enhances your likelihood of getting a management position. You might write important books. Big words can take you a long way if you are skilled at deploying them.

Note: Make sure you know how to pronounce them. Mispronouncing big words will cause unexpected laughter … not good unless you are aiming for a stand-up comedy career.

Let’s start with epistemology. This is an excellent catch-all word you can drop into any conversation. Most people will have no idea what you are talking about but will be too embarrassed to admit it. On the off-chance you encounter someone who actually recognizes the word, you can use this handy-dandy definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the philosopher’s convenient source for everything:

Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one’s own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry.

I bet you still have no idea what it means. The awesome truth is that epistemology doesn’t mean anything because it means everything. Anything that means everything means nothing. Equally, when something claims to do everything, it has no actual use. This applies to people, concepts, and technology. In practical terms, everything and nothing are identical. (Remember infinite sets from college math? It’s like that.)

On to phenomenology. When I was studying religion in college, phenomenology was a way to prove the existence of God. Phenomenologically speaking, all human experience is proof of God. Except the same reasoning can prove there is no God. This is the joy of phenomenology.

Anyone can help you prove your thesis. Just ask.

Phenomenology can help you prove all things are one thing, all things are God. You are God. I am God. I am a warm cup of tea and you are a daffodil. If this doesn’t clarify it for you, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers further elucidation:

Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions.

In other words, you can use any and all human experience, your experience and anyone else’s, to prove whatever you want. Phenomenology is fundamental to all belief systems: religion, politics, and Fox News. Lots of people believe in religion, politics and Fox News, so maybe they will believe in you too.

Enjoy Being a Fount of Wisdom

You now have everything you need to explain everything. You are a fount of wisdom. You can prove all kind of things based on something a couple of friends said years ago while under the influence of powerful hallucinogenic drugs. Although others may fault your logic, in the world of academics, everyone disbelieves everyone else unless they are citing them as a source, so you might as well stick your oar in the water.

The path goes ever on.

There are people who will attack you using faith. Because faith is based on itself, it is hard to dispute. Not to worry. The only one who is ever fully convinced by faith is the one who holds it. Nor does it matter how many people believe or disbelieve it. More believers won’t transform faith into fact. If it did, we could achieve some really nifty things. Like, say we all believe in magic or time travel … and so it works. Cool.

Thanks for reading. I hope I’ve clarified everything for you. If not, feel free to have your people call my people. We’ll talk.


by 19 Comments

My name is Marilyn and I’m Not Dead. Who the Hell Are You?

75-Firepit019

My name is Marilyn but you can call me Teepee12. I am alive, if not entirely well. I plan to stay alive as long as the choice exists. I apologize in advance for any inconvenience my name or state of being might cause. Life is full of problems. Presumably my existence and name are not your biggest ones, so please deal with it yourself. I can’t help you. I lack the authority.

MarilynApr1948The other day I realized I’d gotten an award. I don’t remember which one it was, but it was addressed to Teepee12. I never intended to hide my identity when I chose this Internet ID as a username for my blog on WordPress. I chose it because I’d been using it since 2007 when my book was published. It was comfortable and familiar in an old shoe sort of way. Moreover, no one else seemed to want it and my real name was apparently heavily in demand.

I began using the Internet back in prehistory at the misty dawn of the space-time continuum. We were young then and modems ran at 1200 BPS. In those golden olden days, everyone had a “handle.” No one used real names. I began using Teepee12 after “The 12-Foot Teepee” was published and it stuck, though no one can spell it and auto-correct always changes it to Steeper (damn you auto correct!). I wish I could go back and do it over, using my real name or whatever close cousin to it I can get. There are dozens of Marilyn Armstrongs all over the Internet. Several of my namesakes died recently, so when I Googled myself yesterday, I found myself reading a lot of obituaries with my name on them. This can be weird or troubling, depending on the kind of books you read … but that’s the Internet for you.

I also discovered that I’m in my mid fifties (how nice!), have a Boston telephone number, own three houses, including one on Beacon Hill, and go by the Internet ID Marilyn00054. Hmm. Who’d have guessed? I’d like to see the place on Beacon Hill.

Doesn’t everyone Google themselves once in a while? No? You should try it if you haven’t.  You’ll be amazed — and possibly appalled — at some of the crap you find out there with your name on it, unless you have a particularly unique name. My husband and I both suffer from common-name-syndrome, which means without a picture ID, no one is sure what information pertains to either of us rather than someone — not us — of the same name. Even when it does pertain to us, it’s more often than not, wrong.

A friend of ours was trying to correct the Wikipedia entry about himself. It showed him working at jobs he never held, in states he’s never visited, much less worked in. Wikipedia wouldn’t let him make corrections. It told him he didn’t have sufficient credentials to correct the entry. Being himself was not enough. You need expertise and me being me, him being him, doesn’t count. Yet  I corrected a bunch of information about some movies we watch and my indicating that I have watched the movie a few times was apparently sufficient expertise for that. I don’t have a Wikipedia entry, so I don’t have to worry about it, but Garry’s brother does and I tried to correct it, but being close family doesn’t count as bona fides. Ah modern technology. Ah wilderness.

Being myself is insufficient evidence, your honor.

GarAndMarOriginals-036

Photo Credit: Deb Stone

We have reached the point that being oneself doesn’t matter to anyone but us. Our identity is defined by electronic documents collected by daemons. Robotic data collection programs using set parameters determine Truth. No human beings review the data. If you find errors, you cannot correct them because being you isn’t enough. Human knowledge has no authority. I’d probably find that scary if I weren’t so damned funny. I know a lot of people who worry about keeping off the radar. But the thing is, the radar is so inaccurate, it doesn’t matter. No one will find you because your address is wrong, your age is off by ten years, you live in a house you never owned at the opposite end of the state and have a phone number that was disconnected over a decade ago. Your email address belongs to an ISP that went out of business in 1992 and it is spelled wrong anyhow. I think you might be safer on the radar than off.

I’ve been blogging for a while now and I can’t figure out how to get my name back. I’ve put my name on Serendipity’s header and in the “About Me” section. I sign my name when I write to people. But it apparently doesn’t matter. I have become a teepee and a teepee I shall stay. A 12-foot teepee, which is the smallest possible teepee that isn’t a miniature. It’s probably appropriate on some Karmic plane.

So, consider this my official coming out party. My name is Marilyn Armstrong. I wrote a book titled “The 12-Foot Teepee” and my online ID is Teepee12 whether I like it or not. Marilyn Armstrong is not available and I would have to be MarilynArmstrong00054 or MArmstrong876987 or something and that sounds too much like an android or robot … so for the forseeable future, I am a Teepee.

Teepee12 to you.

Related articles


by 14 Comments

October Country

Mid October would typically be when this region would be hitting peak color. We would be looking forward to another week or two of brilliant color, but the unpredictable New England weather  zapped us again. The leaves brightened early. It seemed very promising a week ago, but then came the rains. We’ve had more rain since late September than we had all summer. We survived the first few weeks of rain, but the last two weeks finished the season in a hurry.

Rain did what it does, stripping leaves from trees before they were able to come to full color. There are more naked trees than you should see this early in Autumn.

I’m pretty sure today was peak for this season. It was very warm, a strange weather day. The sun was coming in and out from behind fast-moving clouds that raced across a brilliant blue sky, making a shadow show on the river.

These pictures were all taken in the middle Uxbridge, where the Mumford River — a large tributary of the Blackstone — and its little canal pass under the road by the railroad bridge. It’s the town’s main intersection. More accurately, it’s the town’s only intersection. Except where Route 16 crosses east to west, Uxbridge lies on a roughly north-south axis along Main Street, also known as Route 122.

Routes are not roads. They are designated pathways between the various towns. In the past, most were postal routes composed of many roads, variously named here and there, depending on through which town you are passing. It’s typical of New England. This was an early settled area and routes follow old trails that may well have existed before European settlers arrived.

I rarely know the name of the piece of road I’m on, but I always know its route number. It’s easier that way.

Most towns in the valley are on either Route 16, 122, 140, 126 or 146. That’s pretty much a summary of our roads. A couple of interstates cross over, but they aren’t part of the valley. They are useful intruders, but not valley natives. Whenever a route passes through a village, it is inevitably called Main Street. Depending on the lay of the land, it will be north, south, east or west Main Street.

It’s not hard to navigate the Valley because we have so few roads. If you stay on one, you’re bound to find yourself someplace familiar.

I had to get out with the camera today. I’m glad I did because I think by next week, it will be gone. Autumn will be history. Until next year.

A note to all:

Recently, I’ve been finding many of my pictures in Wikipedia and other places. Thank you for enjoying my pictures, but I would appreciate the courtesy of a photo credit. Photo credit is Marilyn Armstrong, not Wikipedia. These are not public domain. They are my work. Please respect that.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,659 other followers