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.