comfort

I just opened a book I've never read, and as I took in the words, I started to get happy. I heard the voice of an old friend telling me a story about Bax, his letters, the house he came to own, and the wonderful things which happened to him there.

Gene Wolfe is the only auther I remember ever doing this for me. There is something about his skill, his mastery of the art and language of storytelling, which makes me feel like comfortable. He's my comfort food of fiction. This isn't to say that his stories are shallow; they're anything but. On the surface, most of them come across so simply, so easily, but there are treasures hidden underneath.

This would probably be enough, but he also has such a great grasp of dialogue. All of his characters are real, and talk like real people. They don't orate, they act as conversational puppets to each other's points, and they don't all come across as one gender under the guise of both. The have real conversations in which they get sidetracked and interrupt each other. They answer what they're thinking rather than what the other person was acting. They have faulty reasoning and real dialects. And all of it is taken into account; it all adds to the story.

Well, you can certainly see that I love Gene Wolfe. He's one of the best.

what goes in...

I've been thinking quite a bit recently about an issue I can't quite find the right word for.  It started while thinking about the marijuana use general and on a personal level, but led to thinking about all the substances I put in my body: foods, alcohol, tobacco, etc.

There are borders between what nourishes the body and what brings people enjoyment, and between what brings people enjoyment and what people become addicted to in often harmful ways.  Like many people I'm familiar with, I'm on the border between enjoyment and addiction.  My big problem is with sweets, but with other junk foods as well.  Knowing that, I'm interested in getting closer to the border between nourishment and enjoyment.

Ideas like asceticism and simple living interest me, but they are too stark.  I'm not sure of the value in using only what is necessary, or in regular fasting.  The main problem I see is not being able to take enjoyment in the things that are necessary and not being able to have things if their only attribute is that they are enjoyable.  On the other hand, using things only because they are enjoyable, especially in excess or in preference to what is nourishing, takes away from the enjoyment that the majority of things can bring.

There is value, I think, in enjoying something just because it's enjoyable.  But when I eat a large bag of candy or a huge soda, am I really getting much value from it?  Am I really enjoying those things, or am I just fulfilling a destructive craving I've created for myself?

There are also the socio-economic and ecological impacts of excess.  How does the abundance here influence the scarcity elsewhere?  How does the homogeneous variety of our food system impact our ecosystem?

When it comes to drug use, what are the differences between foods and drugs?  Do the more natural drugs nourish me in some way (nutritionally, mentally) more than the man-made ones?  Do the more man-made foods nourish me or only bring me enjoyment?  If I take some food or drug, will it change me in a way that I won't be able to go back on?

I'm mainly left with questions and more questions, but there are a couple of things I can say for sure: I do want to get to a point where I'm putting things in my body mostly for nourishment (mentally and physically) and being able to take enjoyment in that; and I don't want to add extra substances to the mix with so many unanswered questions, I'd rather start removing the excessive ones.

juice or cider?

I was at the store with one of my roommates yesterday and he was shopping for some apple juice.  As he was deciding which to get, I saw apple juice and cider, both from concentrate, both from the same brand, and wondered what exactly the difference was.  They looked pretty much the same.  We each picked up one of the bottles and started comparing.  First we checked the ingredient list; water and apple juice concentrate were listed on both.  We thought maybe it was the concentration of the mixture, so we compared the nutritional facts; the lists were exactly the same.  In fact, everything on the label was the same except for the part where it says 'juice' or 'concentrate'.  We held the containers up to the light, and the shade was exactly the same.  There was one other difference: the price of the cider was about half a dollar more than that of the juice.

rules of thumb

I have a problem with rules of thumb.  Yes, they are often useful, but they can lead to apathy.  Take, for example, "there is nothing new under the sun."  Well, yes, except there has to have been a first time. 


As language came about, there was a first person to say "I love you"; there was a first person to tell a story; there was a first person to tell a joke.  As music came about, there was a first person to discover that a perfect fifth is pleasing; there was a first person to discover the eight tone western scale; there was a first person to come up with the pentatonic blues.


Now, that's 6 out of the estimated 106.5 billion homo sapiens who have ever lived on the earth.  There are many more firsts than that, but still an insignificant amount, so the rule of thumb still stands.  


But then there is my second problem: rules of thumb can lead to apathy.  If I decide that "nothing new under the sun" holds universal, then what motivates me to come up with the next thing?  What is there to drive discovery?  Art and invention are driven by a rejection of this rule of thumb, at least subconsciously, if not consciously.


Perhaps most important is the search for truth.  There would be no search for truth if people did not reject the idea that there is nothing new.


Will everyone who looks for the new find it?  Is everything that seems new actually new?  Does new necessarily mean valuable?  What is gained by the search for the new, if the end goal is not realized?

name

Have I said this already?

When I first came to Madison on my own, for college, I saw a book in the store called Ideas and Opinions.  It was a collection of writings from Albert Einstein.  There were things in there about his scientific theories, but it contained lots of other things, like opinions about education, Zionism, politics, peace.

I've since gotten rid of the book, and I honestly don't remember much of what he said, but the name stuck with me.  When I needed to come up with a URL for this blog and my initial ideas were taken, this came to mind.  I do not think that I approach the level of intellect of the author of my source of inspiration.

who am i

I am certainly not the person who started this blog. Neither am I the person who wrote the recent posts. But that is who I am.

I look at the things I wrote and have a hard time remembering who that was. How was I able to think this, or say that? Surely I know better now.

But do I? Am I better than those other people? It's unacceptable, so we're told, to say we're better than others, but don't we think it of ourselves? I do, sometimes. If I were to meet me would I think I'm better? Would I like me? Who am I now that's better than me? What defines me?

This is all cliche.

picture perfect

Think of a busy intersection at the beginning of rush-hour. There are signals for left turns, right turns, and straight-ahead traffic, with islands for pedestrians who only make it partly across. From one side of the intersection comes a mother duck with her lone duckling. They aproach one of the crosswalks, and step into the street. Luckily, the signal is in their favor, and no one decides to ignore it. The ducks make it to one of the islands just in time for the traffic to start up, and they wait. When the signal is about to change, the two of them start out into the crosswalk, only to turn right, into the intersection, after the first few steps. They walk diagonally through the middle as cars make their left turns. They reach the middle as the oncoming cars start, walking in the dead space between the two directions of traffic. They get to the end of the dead space just as that side starts to die down, and finally make it to the other side safely.

Cliché, right? Something you'd see only on a motivational poster for PERSEVERANCE or LUCK? Wrong. This is something I witnessed today on my way to do my laundry. I only wish I had a video camera.

weekend songs

Over the weekend, I went to visit a friend in Milwaukee. On Sunday morning, we visited her church for the first part of the service, but had to leave early, so I only got to hear the music. Having had some time away from church (like half a year or more), the worship songs struck me as cliché, and therefore mostly meaningless. Most were songs I was already familiar with, but say the same things they've said since I was a child. They seem to ignore the reality of life and the struggle to worship. What about songs I can identify with, songs about praising God in the midst of suffering? What about songs that talk about Jesus' goals here on earth? What about songs with deaper meaning than the attributes of God quoted from a sunday school primer?

There is something to be said for simple songs of expression, but they need to be balanced with songs we can identify with day to day. I want to sing those songs.

politics, part two

I'll be very happy when this election is over. More and more as we approach the election, I see the ugliness that is brought out at a personal level, not to mention the venomous ads from various political groups, and often the animosity I see pops up where it wouldn't otherwise.

It seems like people are changed somehow when they get behind their man. When talking about key issues at other times, I feel like I can address the issue by itself, but during election time, people group the issues together at either the Republican or Democrat end of things, and it's very hard to have productive conversations. It's frustrating, and I'll be happy once we've gotten past this season.

politics, part one

Of course I'm writing about politics, it's the day before the election.

Prior to this election, I have not voted for any candidate. Sometimes I didn't vote at all, other times I turned in a blank ballot. I did this because I thought I could never get completely behind a candidate. I still can't. I did this as a protest to the system, but now I don't think it was any sort of an effective protest. I used to think that people, upon finding out who I had voted for, would think I agreed with that candidate on every issue. I still think people will often initially come to that conclusion, but will eventually remember that no one agrees completely with any candidate.

The thing is, I've always had a hard time being interested in politics on a national level. There's so much bullsh!t to wade through, and I don't have the interest to make enough time to arrive at a proper conclusion. My interest is much more in the personal relationships I have. Not just sticking with the relationships I've already got, but developing new ones. I think of it, in part, as politics at a personal level. I have no problem being interested in that sort of politics.

So why did I vote this election? It's not really because either of the candidates (I hate that the system makes it valid to use "either" like this), although it is a bit because of the current president. It's mostly because of my own personal growth. I think that my previous ideals, while still here, were carried out in an immature way. Our government is one place, I think, where we need to try to change from within. I think I'm much more equipped to be active in politics on a personal level, but those who have the interest and ability should try to change things at the broader levels.