Erika's Bloglet

Sublime Generosity
by Rumi

I was dead, then alive.
Weeping, then laughing.

The power of love came into me,
and I became fierce like a lion,
then tender like the evening star.

He said, "You're not mad enough.
You don't belong in this house."

I went wild and had to be tied up.
He said, "Still not wild enough
to stay with us!"

I broke through another layer
into joyfulness.

He said, "It's not enough."
I died.

He said, "You are a clever little man,
full of fantasy and doubting."

I plucked out my feathers and became a fool.
He said, "Now you are the candle
for this assembly."

But I'm no candle. Look!
I'm scattered smoke

He said, "You are the Sheikh, the guide."
But I'm not a teacher. I have no power.

He said, "You already have wings.
I cannot give you wings."

But I wanted his wings.
I felt like some flightless chicken.

Then new events said to me,
"Don't move. A sublime generosity is
coming towards you."

And old love said, "Stay with me."

I said, "I will."

You are the fountain of the sun's light.
I am a willow shadow on the ground.
You make my raggedness silky.

The soul at dawn is like darkened water
that slowly begins to say Thank you, thank you.

Then at sunset, again, Venus gradually
Changes into the moon and then the whole nightsky.

This comes of smiling back
at your smile.

The chess master says nothing,
other than moving the silent chess piece.

That I am part of the ploys
of this game makes me
amazingly happy.
_
respond?
01:52:58 PM, Thursday 22 November 2007

-

Someone at the New York Times agrees with me on rocks! With a nice quote from William James! _
respond? (3)
07:35:13 AM, Thursday 22 November 2007

-

Kim Jong Il is smelly. I spit on his image, I fold newspaper pictures of his face back and forth until they are thoroughly disfigured! I just have to say this for all the people in North Korea who can't. I really have this absolute horror of what's going on in North Korea. Everything I read about it makes me think there is something seriously wrong with that state, in a worse way than your run-of-the-mill dictatorship. _
respond? (1)
05:04:03 PM, Sunday 18 November 2007

-

Today I read both this essay by T. H. Huxley from 1889, and this book review by John Polkinghorne about books responding to Dawkins' latest assault on religion. Interesting how the tone and terms of the debate have changed. Huxley was basically begging to be allowed not to profess Christian faith. Very glad we are beyond that now. Now the representative of religion (Polkinghorne) is asking nicely that we not dismiss theology as irrational without understanding it. That seems entirely fair to me. Perhaps progress has been made (not that Dawkins is progress. I won't address Dawkins, because I'm allergic to his writing and can't read it). _
respond? (13)
07:43:27 PM, Saturday 17 November 2007

-

I'm trying to balance a lot of things here. I'm trying to balance rationality with my vague intuitions, I'm trying to pull out my inner understanding of things and put it where it can be seen, I'm weighing sobriety against enthusiasm against cynicism against hope. I want to say of course God is a damn bastard for creating this world, but sort of maybe that we can understand that? I guess religion is all about God forgiving us, but sometimes I feel like there's a lot I need to forgive God for, and sometimes I have this sense like no matter what God throws at me, I get it, and I can forgive it, and sometimes I don't. I wish I did, more, because there's more strength there, I think.

I guess the thing that's changed from before is, before I thought the world was terrible, so God if He existed must be terrible to create such a terrible world, so I'd rather think that nothing was behind the world, than something terrible. It lets God off the hook, in a sense, to imagine that the world runs as some sort of automaton. Allows one to forgive more easily. Oh it's just a dumb universe-machine, it can't help anything. But there's a stopped feeling there, with that idea, a stuck feeling, a feeling that one is stopping oneself from really engaging with the universe by denying that it has the most basic characteristics of thought, feeling, and intention.

I don't mean, at all, that we should throw away reason and start trying to live off prayer like the Taliban. Whatever sort of God we're working with, it is one that responds more consistently to direct action than to verbal appeals. It is very important to me not to fall into superstition. To a certain degree, what you see is what you get, and you don't see God swooping in all over the place. That is not God's character, so to speak. But still I think I mean something by a personal God, I mean sort of a thread running through things, a center... or something. Still can't quite articulate it. _
respond? (6)
08:49:52 PM, Friday 16 November 2007

-

Ok so what was I on about when I said I believed in a personal God?

What I don't mean. Tim's first question when I said this was, so do you believe in revelation? And I was like of course not. Never fear, I have not suddenly become Christian, I'm not about to start believing in the literal divinity of Christ or anything like that. Despite a moderate dose of Presbyterian Sunday school as a child, Christianity will always be to me one of those "other" religions, something with a grand tradition and a lot of interesting thought and art, but not something I can fully take part in. I also don't mean that I believe in prayer; I don't think prayer is even particularly relevant to the matter of whether I believe in a personal God. So what do I mean by it? Do I mean anything? (I might well not. This is an open question.)

A first pass: the universe (the biggest thing, the highest thing, God) is not completely and utterly alien. I think that is the first thing that I mean. Is perhaps as alien as it is possible to get, even, but that is not complete and utter. Why do I think this? I find it difficult to explain why, perhaps it is an article of faith. I have to believe that the force which brought us here is not stupid, is not unaware of us, is not unsympathetic to us, knows damn well exactly what It is doing. I didn't always believe this.

So if I didn't always believe this, what changed? I think there's been a sort of chipping away at my atheism, no one big thing. It seems less and less necessary to take a hardline atheist view of the world, seems more sane not to.

Another attempt: So there's my experience. And God, to be God, must know my experience. Not as some sort of shadow experience that is understood within a higher (easier, better) context, but exactly as it is. The Christian myth comes close to this, God understanding what Man is by becoming a man. I guess I take this more universally, God in order to understand each one of us must actually be in part each one of us. As if there would be no such thing as human experience if God did not willingly divide Himself into separate blind consciousnesses. Am I making any sense whatsoever? Ok I don't feel I've quite got this down but that is enough for now, besides I'm probably committing all sorts of heresies, but that is what happens when you bandy about words like God. _
respond? (8)
09:06:35 PM, Thursday 15 November 2007

-

Have been thinking about evolution and religion, due to a church group on Dawkins. I seem to have far more to say than I can get down on paper. To do: explicate the following points:

_
respond? (5)
08:18:54 PM, Wednesday 14 November 2007

-

I wondered, looking at a list of movies I'd never heard of, whether I'd lost touch with 21st century American culture. Then Tim pointed out that I have blog and an RSS feed of XKCD. _
respond? (2)
06:16:14 PM, Monday 12 November 2007

-

I had a dream last night about fashion, of all things. Tall straw hats were in for women, whole boutiques full of them, and also long flowy dresses and sort of coats made of hemp netting (purely decorative) that one wore over them. _
respond?
06:38:19 AM, Monday 12 November 2007

-

This article which Neil linked to is extremely disturbing. I think I had heard of this school before, but I had no idea that it was legal to use electric shock against students. This is not even related to electroshock therapy (which would be bad enough). This is using painful electric shock to control students' behavior.

This story is not morally complicated. It is very simple. You don't abuse children. Ever. Not if they abuse you first, not if they abuse themselves. I thought this was understood. I thought that was part of the contract.

There may be consequences to not abusing these children, just as there are consequences to not using torture against enemies. Morality requires that we accept these consequences. Even if it means accepting the possibility of not thwarting a terrorist attack, we should not use torture. Even if it means accepting the possibility that a child will hurt himself or others, we should not abuse him. It is not even, when it comes down to it, a matter of the child, or the child's interests. It is a matter of what we want to be, ourselves. From the article:

Marguerite Famolare brought her son Michael to the Rotenberg Center six years ago, after he attacked her so aggressively she had to call 911 and, in a separate incident, flipped over a kitchen table onto a tutor. Michael, now 19, suffers from mental retardation and severe autism. These days, when he comes home for a visit, Marguerite carries his shock activator in her purse. All she has to do, she says, is show it to him. "He'll automatically comply to whatever my signal command may be, whether it is 'Put on your seatbelt,' or 'Hand me that apple,' or 'Sit appropriately and eat your food,'" she says. "It's made him a human being, a civilized human being."

Perhaps the son has been trained into the semblance of a civilized human being, but what has the mother become? Does tyranny suddenly become acceptable in the case of severe autism? (the case of war?)

This story should not be understood in the context of those people, those children, those problematic children who need a good curing. The temptation to abuse children, because they are small, because they are disobedient, is universal. There have been times and places when it was thought and expected that all children needed a good beating. This turned out to be false for ordinary children. I see no reason why it should not be false for these problematic children as well.

As to where these children should go, what should be done with them? Well, obviously this is where moral strength comes in. Society must, parents must, teachers must, everyone must accept these [disabled/troubled/Bad] children back into their midst. This may be easier than it sounds, from the article it sounded like only a small proportion of children at the school really "need" (deserve?) the treatment they are getting there. Whether these children are really bad is up for question. That the place that they are being sent to is bad is undeniable.

(Ok, something finally got me thinking. Which was probably necessary.)

_
respond? (4)
10:39:48 AM, Saturday 20 October 2007

-

Wow, it's been a while since I've blogged. I have been happy & calm & stable & engaged with the world. Working, reading and listening to things in German (it's so much fun! it makes me feel like a little kid! Japanese is next...), hanging out with people (yay people!), and generally staying on top of things. It feels like I was treading water for a long time and now finally am up on the beach, and just resting, not prone to any sort of thought at all. _
respond?
07:31:54 PM, Wednesday 17 October 2007

-

In a fit of impulse-cookery, I have made these. They are excellent. _
respond? (1)
06:44:31 PM, Wednesday 17 October 2007

-

Eight armed robotic orange harvesters do not actually exist. Yet. I heard about them on Marketplace and got it into my head they were in active use. But no, there is Future yet to come. _
respond?
06:59:04 PM, Tuesday 2 October 2007

-

Also, survey: do you know what the word titchy means? If so do you think of it as a Britishism? I ask because I thought it was a perfectly normal word until Julia didn't know what it meant, and then I began to suspect Tim as my source for it. _
respond? (11)
05:32:11 PM, Saturday 29 September 2007

-

It has been an excellent Accomplishment Saturday. I was full of moral energy*. Let's see, I vacuumed two rooms (including under the bed!), cleaned out two closets, tidied the kitchen, planned meals, did several loads of laundry, and still had time to read a bit and take a nap, and it's not even 6 yet. Tim probably has more accomplishments even than me.

*Moral energy: energy which is available to do housework and other unpleasantries without mental blocks or internal nagging. _
respond? (1)
05:29:08 PM, Saturday 29 September 2007

-

The post-it next to the home-grown habaneros said "not for the faint of heart". This was not a warning to be taken lightly. My nose is burning and swelling from touching a piece of it. This chicken spinach dish (two rings of habanero, plus a regular jalapeno) may not be for the faint of heart either. Ah well. Bravely we march on towards dinner. _
respond? (1)
06:50:21 PM, Thursday 27 September 2007

-

Happy equinox! _
respond?
03:01:58 PM, Sunday 23 September 2007

-

Sometimes I feel like things could just go ker-thunk! and fall into place. And then they don't, quite. _
respond?
09:34:03 PM, Tuesday 18 September 2007

-

This entry intentionally left contentless. _
respond?
09:11:49 PM, Tuesday 18 September 2007

-

There were no locally grown tomatoes in the grocery store today. None. Not one. _
respond?
05:30:33 PM, Saturday 15 September 2007

-

For some reason I got obsessed with making this. Never mind the fact that it is no longer cold thing season. Mostly the concept of sour cherry juice fascinated me. Tim finally got me some, and I did it as a sorbet in our new ice cream maker. For some reason I thought being chilled would lessen the impact of the sour cherry juice. It appears to be the opposite. So, difficult to eat more than a very small bite at a time. Should have added... something. Also, tastes remarkably like fruit soup (there's no wikipedia entry for fruit soup! This is a travesty!) _
respond?
01:27:25 PM, Saturday 15 September 2007

-

Wordless music is... awesome. Nope, can't find a better word. _
respond?
11:18:26 AM, Saturday 15 September 2007

-

This is the sort of thing one finds if one types random nonsense words into google. _
respond?
08:02:38 PM, Sunday 9 September 2007

-

So. I have a problem. I keep forgetting to water the plants. I used to have a routine, every other day. Somehow that has fallen apart-- now it's every time the plants look sad. So, being a software type, my instinct is to throw technology at the problem. So I poked around looking for a solution. All I want is a nice to-do list with repeating tasks that lives in my task bar and pops up reminders. Of course Outlook will do this. But Outlook costs money, and, eh, don't know about Outlook. The free Windows Calendar doesn't quite cut it: it doesn't do repeating tasks. Google Calendar can do repeats but doesn't have tasks. The free software I tried had reminders which were sort of but not quite like tasks. The checkbox is important to me. Anyway, any recommendations? My plants will thank you. _
respond? (5)
04:42:45 PM, Monday 3 September 2007

-

Ah. Found it. Here is a classic geek story. (This is how it came up.) _
respond? (1)
05:02:44 PM, Monday 27 August 2007

-

So I twisted my ankle on Saturday. Not too badly, I seem to be hobbling about ok today. But whenever I encounter sudden extreme pain, I have a tendency to faint or black out. I have blacked out when I hit my funny bone, I have fainted when giving blood. This time I remained conscious but blacked out. On my way to blacking out, instead of seeing stars, I saw a shiny snowflake taking up most of my field of vision, with little red hearts emanating from it. Little red hearts. I think I must have hit the tackiness nerve or something. _
respond?
04:09:58 PM, Monday 27 August 2007

-

Synth pop, on the other hand, I am not conflicted about. _
respond?
03:40:11 PM, Monday 27 August 2007

-

This story came on the radio just as I was thinking about my own practice of meditation, what it was good for, whether to pick it up again.

Whether it is religious-- well it seems if they need specially trained people to tell children to be quiet for ten minutes then there must be some sort of agenda. Quiet time may be useful, I'm not sure why it has to be "transcendental" or involve mantras. From my own experience with meditation it seems to me that it is fundamentally religious. This is not to say that is a good or bad thing, that is just to say that if you join a meditation group and poke people about their beliefs, you will tend to find Buddhism in varying degrees of seriousness.

So the question is, given that I am not Buddhist and not likely to become so, does it make sense to meditate? It is something I have found aesthetically pleasing, and sometimes useful for calming and focusing, and sometimes a good way of being with people. But to take it seriously, as a practice, something to do every day-- that is what I'm not so sure about. On the one hand it's appealing, a ritual, a way to organize some down time. On the other hand, it takes time and energy, and is a bit sort of forced, especially when one truly does not hope to gain anything from it (as opposed to the sort of paradox of attempting to gain enlightenment and being indifferent to it at the same time). Then again reading Shunryu Suzuki is so refreshing. Then again reading one of his disciples, who wrote a book called "Zen at Work", was not so refreshing. He was a manager at IBM, and it was surprising how well his organization man IBM world fit in so perfectly with the zen world-- all emphasis on discipline and taking one's place in a heirarchy. Which is not so appealing. Don't know. I am conflicted. I think I shall try to find other ways to have organized downtime. _
respond?
03:38:47 PM, Monday 27 August 2007

-

Ugh bleh. _
respond? (10)
08:02:33 AM, Friday 24 August 2007

-

I saw an ambulance in my rear view mirror today. This is exciting because I got to actually see the "ecnalubma" as "ambulance". For the first time ever. Sorry. This should not amuse me so much. _
respond?
06:48:57 PM, Thursday 23 August 2007

-

Have you ever wondered when the last time you thought of a particular word was? Like say "rose" or "Elvis"? This survey is to settle a bet. I'm not quite sure what the terms of the bet are. I asked for a pigeon but I don't think I really want one. _
respond? (10)
08:49:57 PM, Thursday 16 August 2007

-

Notes on "An Unfortunate Dualist", by Raymond M. Smullyan (1980):

This paper is so short I risk writing a commentary longer than it. Unfortunately it appears not to be available online. The gist of it is: if there was a drug that would carefully excise your soul, leaving your body intact and behaving just like you, would you take it? Why or why not? Of course the conclusion is that such a drug, having no external effects, is essentially pointless.

This argument seems to be of limited value. Cartesian dualists would be daft to admit that the soul could be excised without harming any human functions, and on the Aristotelian conception of the soul it makes no sense to talk about a functioning, being-at-work-staying-itself body without a soul: the soul is the very form of the body. I suppose it is aimed at people like Huxley who believe that there is a soul that sort of sits there being conscious of things without having any actual effects. Not that I haven't thought similar things. I think the main problem is the fantasy of the zombie. Automata that look just like human beings and do our bidding but have no feelings! This is in a certain sense quite thinkable, even if it must in reality be impossible. _
respond?
08:46:39 PM, Wednesday 15 August 2007

-

Ok, so I've been reading Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary readings by David Chalmers, which is a collection of several dozen articles, many of which are abridged. "Classical" may not mean what Johnnies expect it to: Descartes is the oldest philosopher represented, and the only other pre-20th-century voice is that of Huxley. Anyway, I found myself taking notes to keep track of the various arguments, and I thought to myself, why not blog them? What better for a blog than random content. So here goes.

Notes on "On the Hypothesis That Animals Are Automata, and Its History", by Thomas H. Huxley (1874):

The most interesting bit of this is a long discussion of the consciousness of frogs. The argument goes like this: If you sever a person's spinal cord, they are no longer conscious of their body below the point where the injury occurred. If you sever a frog's spinal cord, the situation is, to all appearances, similar. However, the frog's leg moves when tickled, therefore conscious-like behavior is possible for something that couldn't possibly be conscious, that is to say, the frog's legs. Moving the point where the nervous system is severed up to the rear of the brain, you get still more conscious-like behavior-- the frog will swim when you put it in water, but in other ways doesn't act very conscious, for instance it doesn't seek out food. It doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch, along these lines, to say that the whole of the frog's behavior could be acheived by the same (presumably unconscious) mechanisms by which it can twitch and swim. So Huxley concludes that frogs are in fact automata. And then of course people are similar to frogs... so then what? Are people automata too? Huxley's answer: "our mental conditions are simply the symbols in consciousness of the changes which take place automatically in the organism.... We are consicous automata....".

It's an interesting argument, and I admire the effort to bring human beings and animals under the same domain, but it leaves a lot of questions dangling. How can the frog be both obviously conscious and demonstrably unconscious? And the usual problems with epiphenomenalism: if "in men as in brutes, there is no proof that any state of consciousness is the cause of change in the motion of the matter of the organism", then what are these states of consciousness, what do they have to do with matter, and what are they doing outside the chain of causality? _
respond?
08:03:37 PM, Wednesday 15 August 2007

-

Technology scares the crap out of me. (from Post Secret) _
respond?
09:02:09 AM, Saturday 11 August 2007

-

Does stirring coconut milk into cold tea make Thai iced tea? Almost, but not quite. _
respond?
05:56:50 PM, Friday 10 August 2007

-

Everything is a goat: a Godelian proof. Scroll down. _
respond?
09:05:49 AM, Friday 10 August 2007

-

older entries

site & script courtesy of Moss

older entries

music

recent activity