Lately I've been challenged in my perception of life. I keep running into these statements that force me to stop and reconsider everything I've held to be right and true.
For example, "Bacon is a vegetable." I've always thought bacon tasty, but have (almost) always felt some guilt when eating it for fear that the one slice I just consumed hardened my left ventricular artery or caused another lipid molecule to adhere to the vessel wall, beginning the dark, dangerous path to a clot. But now I am faced with the option of believing (if I want to keep an open mind, after all) that bacon falls under the category of vegetable, that class of foods purported to increase years and quality of life. The real question is whether my belief changes reality (after all, I do want to keep an open mind). Well, you see, I can believe that it does (for me, at least) or I can believe that it doesn't, which would put me right back where I was before I read that bacon is a vegetable. I certainly don't want to think that I wasted all this time reading and contemplating that statement, so for the sake of redeeming potentially wasted time I'll just choose to believe it (haha! I love grammar. You, dear reader, have no idea what I've decided to believe! There are way too many antecedents for that pronoun. Anyway, in the interests of relativity, I'll let you decide which noun "it" refers to.)
The other statement I've seen is "feelings are boring, kissing is awesome." I had to think about this one for a while because, you see, I'm a girl. If you've lived life more than five minutes, you've heard that girls are all into feelings and relationships and stuff like that. You might think that this statement comes from a guy, seeing that they are the ones always classified as "chauvinist pigs" and "too physical" and etc. But, after long, careful contemplation, I have to agree with this statement. I'd make one revision: "feelings are boring, good kissing is awesome" (though that may just be my feelings saying that).
2.26.2007
2.24.2007
Birthdays
Today is my friend Sarah Jo's birthday. It's overcast and windy, which would make one think that it's a bad day for a birthday.
BUT
we're under a tornado watch. For most people that may mean an even worse birthday, but not so for my dear friend. No, some of us have a great appreciation for the more violent of mother nature's expressions. Wait, I'm Presbyterian, I don't believe in mother nature (or do I?). Anyway, the fact that we're under a tornado watch, in Sarah Jo's eyes, redeems the overcastedness of the day making it all add up to a fantastic birthday day. Though she did admit that it would be most exciting if we actually have a tornado and no damage is caused and no people injured.
I'm not really that fascinated with tornadoes, but a good, thorough thunderstorm does get me excited. The strength of air and water in that context astounds me. Well, whatever happens . . .
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SARAH JO!!
I hope you have a great day.
BUT
we're under a tornado watch. For most people that may mean an even worse birthday, but not so for my dear friend. No, some of us have a great appreciation for the more violent of mother nature's expressions. Wait, I'm Presbyterian, I don't believe in mother nature (or do I?). Anyway, the fact that we're under a tornado watch, in Sarah Jo's eyes, redeems the overcastedness of the day making it all add up to a fantastic birthday day. Though she did admit that it would be most exciting if we actually have a tornado and no damage is caused and no people injured.
I'm not really that fascinated with tornadoes, but a good, thorough thunderstorm does get me excited. The strength of air and water in that context astounds me. Well, whatever happens . . .
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SARAH JO!!
I hope you have a great day.
2.21.2007
Lent
This week I've been wondering what's up with Lent. And I've also been wondering what's up with me sitting at a desk all day looking at a computer screen only to come home, sit at my desk, and look at a computer screen.
But back to Lent. Actually, I don't have any thoughts about Lent to share. Several people at my office mentioned it, and some talked about what they're giving up for Lent. I thought, hey, I could give up sweets and candy, lose some weight, and fit into all my clothes again. Somehow it didn't seem appropriate to do that in the name of Lent, so I've decided to do it just because that's what I decided. And thankfully, I didn't decide with a time limit, so a newer decision---such as "eat sweets and candy"---will override that one.
I started organizing the books on my shelves. I made it through alphabetizing my fiction and reference books, but haven't made any more progress. I'm supposed to be working on it right now, but I decided to redo my blog instead. Though I did add a list of books I have in my library that I haven't read yet. And I didn't even include the language books that I want to study. Memorizing a new vocabulary unfortunately takes more than one read-through.
In hunting for some good GRE study books, I've discovered that Barron's is superior to Kaplan. At least that's what the Amazon customer reviewers think. Princeton's was mentioned, but not discussed. Speaking of Amazon, I've also started compiling a massive wish list of books I'd like to read some day. Most of them I don't know much about other than that they sound interesting to me.
Enough procrastination! To the shelves I go!
But back to Lent. Actually, I don't have any thoughts about Lent to share. Several people at my office mentioned it, and some talked about what they're giving up for Lent. I thought, hey, I could give up sweets and candy, lose some weight, and fit into all my clothes again. Somehow it didn't seem appropriate to do that in the name of Lent, so I've decided to do it just because that's what I decided. And thankfully, I didn't decide with a time limit, so a newer decision---such as "eat sweets and candy"---will override that one.
I started organizing the books on my shelves. I made it through alphabetizing my fiction and reference books, but haven't made any more progress. I'm supposed to be working on it right now, but I decided to redo my blog instead. Though I did add a list of books I have in my library that I haven't read yet. And I didn't even include the language books that I want to study. Memorizing a new vocabulary unfortunately takes more than one read-through.
In hunting for some good GRE study books, I've discovered that Barron's is superior to Kaplan. At least that's what the Amazon customer reviewers think. Princeton's was mentioned, but not discussed. Speaking of Amazon, I've also started compiling a massive wish list of books I'd like to read some day. Most of them I don't know much about other than that they sound interesting to me.
Enough procrastination! To the shelves I go!
2.06.2007
History
While researching some university history departments, I observed that some institutions of higher learning catalog their history department under humanities whilst others lump history with social sciences. Soon my observation became a question: why the heck do they do that?
This launched me into an inner debate over the meaning of history and the purpose of studying it. For me to continue writing, I have to note that I'm not trained in the study of history, or at least, I haven't applied myself to the processes of history and historiography to come up with my own philosophies of history. Perhaps that's what I'm doing right now.
A class I took in undergraduate, which many of you have heard me discuss if you've talked to me more than once, included a discussion of history. We read War and Peace, discussing the questions Tolstoy asked about history. What drives human history? What moves events? Is it the action of individuals? How do the lives of individuals work within the larger framework of great rulers, wars, the rising and falling of nations? Do men make history happen? Or, maybe, do our actions make history happen? Do events, such as war, plagues, famines, etc., determine our actions?
These are the questions that put history under humanities. They involve discussion of the nature of man, his relation to nature (events, at least natural ones), his relation to humanity and history.
Do we study history to understand humanity? to attain a deeper understanding of our humanness?
* * * * * * * * * *
Today I heard the statement: To move forward, we have to come to terms with the past.
This understanding of history (which I think would fall under Henry Ford's assessment, "History is one damn thing after another.") pushes history under the social sciences. As a society, we must study our past so that [fill in the blank] "we don't repeat the past" or "we don't make the same mistakes" or etc.
This approach demands that certain other questions be answered. What is "forward"? and who determines the direction "we" want to move? What are mistakes? Who decides what a mistake is?
* * * * * * * * * *
From my current understanding, I don't see any point in studying history as a "social science." If a society does not agree on fundamental questions, primarily dealing with the "Who," no one can measure if "progress" is "made." And if someone does measure it somehow, the next generation is likely to call it a mistake.
So, you may be asking, what is the value of knowing man? Well, practically, I don't know. But it sure is a heck of a lot o' fun!
[Humanities are worthwhile studies, but I'm not articulate on my reasoning, and I'm being lazy.]
This launched me into an inner debate over the meaning of history and the purpose of studying it. For me to continue writing, I have to note that I'm not trained in the study of history, or at least, I haven't applied myself to the processes of history and historiography to come up with my own philosophies of history. Perhaps that's what I'm doing right now.
A class I took in undergraduate, which many of you have heard me discuss if you've talked to me more than once, included a discussion of history. We read War and Peace, discussing the questions Tolstoy asked about history. What drives human history? What moves events? Is it the action of individuals? How do the lives of individuals work within the larger framework of great rulers, wars, the rising and falling of nations? Do men make history happen? Or, maybe, do our actions make history happen? Do events, such as war, plagues, famines, etc., determine our actions?
These are the questions that put history under humanities. They involve discussion of the nature of man, his relation to nature (events, at least natural ones), his relation to humanity and history.
Do we study history to understand humanity? to attain a deeper understanding of our humanness?
* * * * * * * * * *
Today I heard the statement: To move forward, we have to come to terms with the past.
This understanding of history (which I think would fall under Henry Ford's assessment, "History is one damn thing after another.") pushes history under the social sciences. As a society, we must study our past so that [fill in the blank] "we don't repeat the past" or "we don't make the same mistakes" or etc.
This approach demands that certain other questions be answered. What is "forward"? and who determines the direction "we" want to move? What are mistakes? Who decides what a mistake is?
* * * * * * * * * *
From my current understanding, I don't see any point in studying history as a "social science." If a society does not agree on fundamental questions, primarily dealing with the "Who," no one can measure if "progress" is "made." And if someone does measure it somehow, the next generation is likely to call it a mistake.
So, you may be asking, what is the value of knowing man? Well, practically, I don't know. But it sure is a heck of a lot o' fun!
[Humanities are worthwhile studies, but I'm not articulate on my reasoning, and I'm being lazy.]
2.03.2007
the new me
Through my church I am taking Dave Ramsey's Financial Peach University. Supposedly if I attend 12 of 13 classes, I graduate! I've always wanted another degree, so I guess I certificate won't be that bad.
Ramsey hates credit cards, which I have started calling ruin-my-life-debt cards. I decided to pay mine off and cancel them. It's funny, but I get the distinct impression that my credit card doesn't want to be canceled. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that there is absolutely no information regarding cancellation on the website, and when you call the 800 number, you have to go through 10+ button options to get to something that sounds like it might have something to do with closing the account. Then you are put on hold for the standard 20--30 minutes. tick. tock. tick. tock. tick. tock.
. . . wait . . . I've gotten through . . .
Hm. That was easier than closing my free AOL account back when I first got my computer.
Yay!
Ramsey hates credit cards, which I have started calling ruin-my-life-debt cards. I decided to pay mine off and cancel them. It's funny, but I get the distinct impression that my credit card doesn't want to be canceled. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that there is absolutely no information regarding cancellation on the website, and when you call the 800 number, you have to go through 10+ button options to get to something that sounds like it might have something to do with closing the account. Then you are put on hold for the standard 20--30 minutes. tick. tock. tick. tock. tick. tock.
. . . wait . . . I've gotten through . . .
Hm. That was easier than closing my free AOL account back when I first got my computer.
Yay!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)