Monday, June 12, 2006
INSOMNIA
I've tried laying down in the quiet and the dark.
I've tried drinking warm milk.
I've tried taking a bath in lavender water.
It's no use.
Sleep remains elusive.
So I read, I write, I listen to music, I let my thoughts roam...
I've never understood the concept of counting sheep.
Where did that come from?
My body is tired. I'm on my fourth day of not enough z's.
But the brain has other plans....
So it goes.
I wonder sometimes who else is up in this dark night... what imaginations, what machinations, what plots and perils and ponderings are bouncing around among the stars?
Perceptions of even the most mundane sensory input become so convoluted in the middle of the night. As one AM slips into 2 and then 3 my brain gets fuzzy and I begin to think of all sorts of ideas that SEEM so credible at the time only to burst like soap bubbles in light of day.
Don't give the girl any matches or sharp objects after midnight - she's not to be trusted.
I've tried drinking warm milk.
I've tried taking a bath in lavender water.
It's no use.
Sleep remains elusive.
So I read, I write, I listen to music, I let my thoughts roam...
I've never understood the concept of counting sheep.
Where did that come from?
My body is tired. I'm on my fourth day of not enough z's.
But the brain has other plans....
So it goes.
I wonder sometimes who else is up in this dark night... what imaginations, what machinations, what plots and perils and ponderings are bouncing around among the stars?
Perceptions of even the most mundane sensory input become so convoluted in the middle of the night. As one AM slips into 2 and then 3 my brain gets fuzzy and I begin to think of all sorts of ideas that SEEM so credible at the time only to burst like soap bubbles in light of day.
Don't give the girl any matches or sharp objects after midnight - she's not to be trusted.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Remembering the Starfish Story
One of the things I absolutely hate is the tendency of some women I know to sit around verbally bashing the men in their lives. I refuse to participate in this insidious practice and generally will not associate with women who make a habit of it. In the first place, I adore men in general and am particularly fond of one or two of them in particular. I prefer to focus on the many fine qualities I appreciate about the testosterone laden species. Sure, there are some jerks in the world. But that goes for both genders. Basically, I think it is unproductive and downright destructive to spend a lot of energy in spiteful criticism.
So I started wondering about when and why I find it acceptable to be critical of my government, my culture, my employers, or the noisy neighbors next door.
Where do I draw the line between “accentuate the positive” and giving voice to feelings from annoyance to outrage at what I see happening around me?
When is “venting” about something that makes us angry a healthy thing and when is it merely adding fuel to the fire of negativity?
My main philosophy of life is that if I am displeased with something I have three options:
1) take action to change the situation
2) change how I am defining / reaction to the situation
3) remove myself from the situation
Merely complaining does not seem to move me in the direction of any of the above. It just reinforces what I don’t like about what is happening.
So that takes me back to how upset I get over my government’s short sighted, and in my view, very misguided policies in relation to the rest of the world.
What am I willing to do to try to improve the situation? Sitting around being outraged really does not serve me or the world that I live in. So do I let my outrage run its course till it fizzles out into apathetic disregard or do I channel it into some sort of action?
Granted, I may be just one person and my efforts may appear to have little impact. But like the famous story of the starfish, any difference I DO make can be of use to someone.
It was Everett Edward Hale who said: “ I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
So the trick, for me, is working to determine what, where, and how to best place my focus and energy to find the path for my efforts....
In Power of Vision Joel Barker says:
"Vision without action is merely a dream.
Action without vison just passes the time.
Vision with action can change the world."
I honestly believe that to be true. What remains is to see what I will do about it.
So I started wondering about when and why I find it acceptable to be critical of my government, my culture, my employers, or the noisy neighbors next door.
Where do I draw the line between “accentuate the positive” and giving voice to feelings from annoyance to outrage at what I see happening around me?
When is “venting” about something that makes us angry a healthy thing and when is it merely adding fuel to the fire of negativity?
My main philosophy of life is that if I am displeased with something I have three options:
1) take action to change the situation
2) change how I am defining / reaction to the situation
3) remove myself from the situation
Merely complaining does not seem to move me in the direction of any of the above. It just reinforces what I don’t like about what is happening.
So that takes me back to how upset I get over my government’s short sighted, and in my view, very misguided policies in relation to the rest of the world.
What am I willing to do to try to improve the situation? Sitting around being outraged really does not serve me or the world that I live in. So do I let my outrage run its course till it fizzles out into apathetic disregard or do I channel it into some sort of action?
Granted, I may be just one person and my efforts may appear to have little impact. But like the famous story of the starfish, any difference I DO make can be of use to someone.
It was Everett Edward Hale who said: “ I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
So the trick, for me, is working to determine what, where, and how to best place my focus and energy to find the path for my efforts....
In Power of Vision Joel Barker says:
"Vision without action is merely a dream.
Action without vison just passes the time.
Vision with action can change the world."
I honestly believe that to be true. What remains is to see what I will do about it.
MAPS and our place in the world...
I’ve been giving some thought to why so many Americans have such a pathetic sense of geography and even worse sense of the importance of events that are happening throughout the world.
At work the other day I tried to talk to someone about current events going on in Timor. All I got back was a very blank look and the question “Where is Timor?” Once the person I was speaking with learned that Timor was a small island country between Australia and Indonesia, she completely dismissed the conversation. It could not have seemed less relevant to this person. Her perception was that any events in Timor had no direct bearing on her life, and any views or actions she took could not possibly have any influence on what happens in Timor, so why bother with it? Change the channel. End of story.
So I’ve been thinking more on the processes we rely on for whose suffering matters to us and whose does not.
First, there is an element of whether we consider the ones suffering to be an “us” or a “them” that influences whether or not we will become emotionally involved or take any action. On a personal level, in a crowded room of mothers and toddlers playing together, no matter how noisy it gets, each mom is atuned to know if HER baby is crying. That signal tells her brain when she should get up and intervene and when she can carry on with whatever conversation she may be having. This is also demonstrated by the different ways we respond to genocide, depending on whether the peoples being systematical slaughter look like the dominant white culture of America or not. Just compare knowledge of and reaction to the European Holocaust with how most Americans respond to the atrocities of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict or the travesty of Pol Pot.
Then there is the whole issue of self interest. Is there oil involved? Whether our government cares who invades who definitely gets measured on THAT scale.
Beyond that – there is the whole issue of MAPS. Throughout our entire educational experience, Americans are exposed to word maps that show the United States smack dab in the middle – reinforcing the silly notion that we are the center of the universe. Just as the Sapir Whorf hypothesis would suggest that the words we use shape our perceptions of the world, I think the symbolic representations we surround ourselves with – like our maps – have power to reinforce ideology.
Maybe it would do us some good to throw out all our old maps and replace them with new ones that demonstrate that the good ole U S of A is just one land mass of many, and that OUR culture, OUR views and OUR traditional practices are not the end all, be-all of the world.
When will we ever learn to take our place at the world’s table as collaborating partners rather than egocentric, oblivious thugs pushing our weight around?
At work the other day I tried to talk to someone about current events going on in Timor. All I got back was a very blank look and the question “Where is Timor?” Once the person I was speaking with learned that Timor was a small island country between Australia and Indonesia, she completely dismissed the conversation. It could not have seemed less relevant to this person. Her perception was that any events in Timor had no direct bearing on her life, and any views or actions she took could not possibly have any influence on what happens in Timor, so why bother with it? Change the channel. End of story.
So I’ve been thinking more on the processes we rely on for whose suffering matters to us and whose does not.
First, there is an element of whether we consider the ones suffering to be an “us” or a “them” that influences whether or not we will become emotionally involved or take any action. On a personal level, in a crowded room of mothers and toddlers playing together, no matter how noisy it gets, each mom is atuned to know if HER baby is crying. That signal tells her brain when she should get up and intervene and when she can carry on with whatever conversation she may be having. This is also demonstrated by the different ways we respond to genocide, depending on whether the peoples being systematical slaughter look like the dominant white culture of America or not. Just compare knowledge of and reaction to the European Holocaust with how most Americans respond to the atrocities of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict or the travesty of Pol Pot.
Then there is the whole issue of self interest. Is there oil involved? Whether our government cares who invades who definitely gets measured on THAT scale.
Beyond that – there is the whole issue of MAPS. Throughout our entire educational experience, Americans are exposed to word maps that show the United States smack dab in the middle – reinforcing the silly notion that we are the center of the universe. Just as the Sapir Whorf hypothesis would suggest that the words we use shape our perceptions of the world, I think the symbolic representations we surround ourselves with – like our maps – have power to reinforce ideology.
Maybe it would do us some good to throw out all our old maps and replace them with new ones that demonstrate that the good ole U S of A is just one land mass of many, and that OUR culture, OUR views and OUR traditional practices are not the end all, be-all of the world.
When will we ever learn to take our place at the world’s table as collaborating partners rather than egocentric, oblivious thugs pushing our weight around?
Friday, June 09, 2006
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
In Search of Truth
I’ve been playing around with the Blog a bit, adding some links and experimenting with various templates. Those who don’t know me would say I simply have too much free time. Those who DO know me realize I simply seldom sleep. It’s an interesting diversion in the middle of the night.
So as I was cruising through various web sites having to do with faith/religion/spirituality I was amazed by the wide diversity of beliefs there are in the world.
I am often more intrigued with WHY people believe whatever it is they believe rather than examining the specifics of any particular dogma or doctrine.
Initially most of us believe whatever our family and/or culture exposed us to in a prominent way during our formative years. For some, that sticks throughout their life.
But then there are the rest of us who spend much of our lives searching, questioning, wondering what we can believe and struggling to figure out how that belief will influence the way we behave.
Once when I was a young girl, perhaps nine or ten or so, I had a dream that I was in an elevator. As the elevator went up and down to the various “floors” each one had a cardboard sign with a crayon printed label of some different religion. People came and went, carefully making sure they got off on the proper floor. But when I finally picked my exit point I entered a spacious room with many doors – each one leading to a different elevator exit. Every elevator door was marked a different denomination: Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist, etc. yet they ALL eventually led to the very same room.
Logic seems to insist that varying churches with contradictory beliefs can’t both/all be true …. Surely someone is RIGHT and the other WRONG?? Or does that truly have to be the case? Is it at all possible that our differences in doctrinal views are more akin to the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant, because none of us have a complete universal view?
So many people get all hung up on believing they have the only CORRECT religion. My own faith also believes they have the cutting edge on truth. Somehow I always squirm at that, even though I have a deep testimony of the teachings.
Why can’t we all be more willing to embrace one another and acknowledge our commonalities, celebrating the divine image of God that resides within everyone’s spirit rather than forever building up walls of division separating “us” from “them”?
So as I was cruising through various web sites having to do with faith/religion/spirituality I was amazed by the wide diversity of beliefs there are in the world.
I am often more intrigued with WHY people believe whatever it is they believe rather than examining the specifics of any particular dogma or doctrine.
Initially most of us believe whatever our family and/or culture exposed us to in a prominent way during our formative years. For some, that sticks throughout their life.
But then there are the rest of us who spend much of our lives searching, questioning, wondering what we can believe and struggling to figure out how that belief will influence the way we behave.
Once when I was a young girl, perhaps nine or ten or so, I had a dream that I was in an elevator. As the elevator went up and down to the various “floors” each one had a cardboard sign with a crayon printed label of some different religion. People came and went, carefully making sure they got off on the proper floor. But when I finally picked my exit point I entered a spacious room with many doors – each one leading to a different elevator exit. Every elevator door was marked a different denomination: Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist, etc. yet they ALL eventually led to the very same room.
Logic seems to insist that varying churches with contradictory beliefs can’t both/all be true …. Surely someone is RIGHT and the other WRONG?? Or does that truly have to be the case? Is it at all possible that our differences in doctrinal views are more akin to the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant, because none of us have a complete universal view?
So many people get all hung up on believing they have the only CORRECT religion. My own faith also believes they have the cutting edge on truth. Somehow I always squirm at that, even though I have a deep testimony of the teachings.
Why can’t we all be more willing to embrace one another and acknowledge our commonalities, celebrating the divine image of God that resides within everyone’s spirit rather than forever building up walls of division separating “us” from “them”?
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Icebergs & Intimacy
Some claim that it is only by revealing our inner most hearts to others that we are able to experience true caring relationships. The idea is that full disclosure of emotions, attitudes, opinions, thought life, etc is what leads to being fully engaged and “knowing” each other, building this bond we name "intimacy". According to this view, if I keep most of my inner life concealed, like the mass of icebergs drifting beneath the water line, the quality of my bond with others will be diminished.
There is an alternative belief that the strength of relationships is based on how we BEHAVE toward one another. I may be a very private person, but what matters most is that I treats you kindly. Regardless of what pieces of information I do or don't tell you about myself, if both of us can establish habits of being genuinely nice to one another we can build a bond we both value.
Obviously, kindness and being open are not mutually exclusive conditions. Some people seem able to do both quite well…. But which do I really believe matters more in the quality of my relationships? Which area do I personally need to work on more?
In examining what factors I believe create greater closeness, I also wrestle with acknowledging how close I truly want to be. Do I really want to expose the darkness of my heart to anyone else? Am I willing to invite that level of vulnerability? What do I expect from the other people in my life and what am I willing to give? (or give up?) What am I willing to do to make my significant relationships more meaningful? What am I willing to NO LONGER DO to improve those bonds?
Finding the balance between privacy and self exposure in the context of how I interact with strangers, family or friends is all part of the challenge. It works great when both /all parties in a relationship have complementary levels of interest in one another. But so often, the reciprocity is somewhat lopsided. Then what? If I am willing and open to share who I am with you based on my need/desire to be known, but you do not welcome that level of contact, what happens to my heart? On the other hand, if I feel the need to remain more guarded when you are seeking to open up more, what will the consequence be?
If I seek to know more about you, craving opportunities to delve below the surface social chatter to authentically attend to your human experience, will it matter whether you are open to that or not? Might I be blessed by my openness even if you close your doors?
How much can any of us really know another person, or be known in return? How much is enough? How much is too much? Navigating all that sometimes just feels like too much work. I'd rather climb a tree with a good book and be done with the rest of the human race much of the time. But sooner or later I always come back down and tentatively stick my toe out once more to experiment with interaction....no matter how much I may deny it, there is a hunger deep to look into another face and connect. The degree to which I allow fear to rule my risks in reaching out to other people in the world is how I experience my own waterline on my emotional iceberg. Some days I can drop the level down a considerable ways...other times the tide rises high. How's your waterline today?
There is an alternative belief that the strength of relationships is based on how we BEHAVE toward one another. I may be a very private person, but what matters most is that I treats you kindly. Regardless of what pieces of information I do or don't tell you about myself, if both of us can establish habits of being genuinely nice to one another we can build a bond we both value.
Obviously, kindness and being open are not mutually exclusive conditions. Some people seem able to do both quite well…. But which do I really believe matters more in the quality of my relationships? Which area do I personally need to work on more?
In examining what factors I believe create greater closeness, I also wrestle with acknowledging how close I truly want to be. Do I really want to expose the darkness of my heart to anyone else? Am I willing to invite that level of vulnerability? What do I expect from the other people in my life and what am I willing to give? (or give up?) What am I willing to do to make my significant relationships more meaningful? What am I willing to NO LONGER DO to improve those bonds?
Finding the balance between privacy and self exposure in the context of how I interact with strangers, family or friends is all part of the challenge. It works great when both /all parties in a relationship have complementary levels of interest in one another. But so often, the reciprocity is somewhat lopsided. Then what? If I am willing and open to share who I am with you based on my need/desire to be known, but you do not welcome that level of contact, what happens to my heart? On the other hand, if I feel the need to remain more guarded when you are seeking to open up more, what will the consequence be?
If I seek to know more about you, craving opportunities to delve below the surface social chatter to authentically attend to your human experience, will it matter whether you are open to that or not? Might I be blessed by my openness even if you close your doors?
How much can any of us really know another person, or be known in return? How much is enough? How much is too much? Navigating all that sometimes just feels like too much work. I'd rather climb a tree with a good book and be done with the rest of the human race much of the time. But sooner or later I always come back down and tentatively stick my toe out once more to experiment with interaction....no matter how much I may deny it, there is a hunger deep to look into another face and connect. The degree to which I allow fear to rule my risks in reaching out to other people in the world is how I experience my own waterline on my emotional iceberg. Some days I can drop the level down a considerable ways...other times the tide rises high. How's your waterline today?
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Degrees of Grace, Continuum of Evil
Is there such a thing as BIG sin and little sin?
(which presupposes the issue that there such a thing as SIN...)
Name it what you want - good/evil; healthy/unhealthy; righteousness/sin; functional / dysfunctional... isn't it all more or less the same thing?
Things that move me TOWARD being unified & at peace with self , unified & at peace with others, I view as "good" and things that create dissonance/disconnect within myself or conflict between me and others, I name "bad".
Putting a moral spin on it is not what I'm getting at.
What I am considering is this:
What determines the nature of, or intensity of something being bad?
Is it the CONSEQUENCE? (ie: killing is worse than lying, killing ten people is worse than killing 1 person, killing ten people and lying about it.....you get the picture)
Is it the INTENTION of the person doing it? (killing in self defense is less bad than killing out of revenge or for sport, even though the victims all wind up just as dead)
Is it the CONTEXT of the situation? (killing in war is not considered morally wrong by some, but killing in grocery stores is...)
Then the flip side of that would be....are there DEGREES of good, and if so, based on what?
If I say something nasty but no one hears me say it, does it matter?
If I say something nasty and the person I say it to is able to laugh it off, then what?
How does that compare to me saying something innocuous that inadvertently hurts a friend's feelings very deeply. In this last case - my INTENTION was not negative, but the OUTCOME clearly has a negative spin. Which is worse?
is it better to do ONE big bad thing as opposed to fifty little bad things or visa versa?
If someone is MOSTLY "good" but does something "bad", at what point does the bad cancel out the good in determining character?
One of the problems I have with organized religions is all this talk I hear about the "righteous" and the "wicked", as if they were discrete, separate teams. (Sorta like the shirts / no shirts in pick-up basketball).
From what I can tell, we are ALL good and we are ALL bad, with lives glistening in irredencent shimmer as we continually glide between the two.
If I do a bad thing for a good reason, if I do a good thing for a bad reason....it all confuses the suject.
Some days I am more conscious of the many ways I miss the mark - some would call that being "aware of my sin"....... other days I make JUST as many mistakes, but give myself more slack; Is that justifying/rationalizing or is that appropriately living in grace of the moment?
(which presupposes the issue that there such a thing as SIN...)
Name it what you want - good/evil; healthy/unhealthy; righteousness/sin; functional / dysfunctional... isn't it all more or less the same thing?
Things that move me TOWARD being unified & at peace with self , unified & at peace with others, I view as "good" and things that create dissonance/disconnect within myself or conflict between me and others, I name "bad".
Putting a moral spin on it is not what I'm getting at.
What I am considering is this:
What determines the nature of, or intensity of something being bad?
Is it the CONSEQUENCE? (ie: killing is worse than lying, killing ten people is worse than killing 1 person, killing ten people and lying about it.....you get the picture)
Is it the INTENTION of the person doing it? (killing in self defense is less bad than killing out of revenge or for sport, even though the victims all wind up just as dead)
Is it the CONTEXT of the situation? (killing in war is not considered morally wrong by some, but killing in grocery stores is...)
Then the flip side of that would be....are there DEGREES of good, and if so, based on what?
If I say something nasty but no one hears me say it, does it matter?
If I say something nasty and the person I say it to is able to laugh it off, then what?
How does that compare to me saying something innocuous that inadvertently hurts a friend's feelings very deeply. In this last case - my INTENTION was not negative, but the OUTCOME clearly has a negative spin. Which is worse?
is it better to do ONE big bad thing as opposed to fifty little bad things or visa versa?
If someone is MOSTLY "good" but does something "bad", at what point does the bad cancel out the good in determining character?
One of the problems I have with organized religions is all this talk I hear about the "righteous" and the "wicked", as if they were discrete, separate teams. (Sorta like the shirts / no shirts in pick-up basketball).
From what I can tell, we are ALL good and we are ALL bad, with lives glistening in irredencent shimmer as we continually glide between the two.
If I do a bad thing for a good reason, if I do a good thing for a bad reason....it all confuses the suject.
Some days I am more conscious of the many ways I miss the mark - some would call that being "aware of my sin"....... other days I make JUST as many mistakes, but give myself more slack; Is that justifying/rationalizing or is that appropriately living in grace of the moment?
Paradox
A quote from the book Arctic Dreams by Barry Lopez:
"How is one to live a moral and compassionate existence when one is fully aware of the blood, the horror inherent in life, when one finds darkness not only in one's culture but within oneself? If there is a stage at which an individual life becomes truly adult, it must be when one grasps the irony in its unfolding and accepts responsibility for a life lived in the midst of such paradox. One must live in the middle of contradiction, because if all contradiction were eliminated at once life would collapse. There are simply no answers to some of the great pressing questions. You continue to live them out, making your life a worthy expression of leaning into the light."
I've heard it said that each person's capacity to experience joy is in direct relation to the amount of suffering they have endured. I'm not sure that is true. If it were, would we all go hit ourselves in the head with a hammer just so we could feel so blissful when the pain stopped?
"How is one to live a moral and compassionate existence when one is fully aware of the blood, the horror inherent in life, when one finds darkness not only in one's culture but within oneself? If there is a stage at which an individual life becomes truly adult, it must be when one grasps the irony in its unfolding and accepts responsibility for a life lived in the midst of such paradox. One must live in the middle of contradiction, because if all contradiction were eliminated at once life would collapse. There are simply no answers to some of the great pressing questions. You continue to live them out, making your life a worthy expression of leaning into the light."
I've heard it said that each person's capacity to experience joy is in direct relation to the amount of suffering they have endured. I'm not sure that is true. If it were, would we all go hit ourselves in the head with a hammer just so we could feel so blissful when the pain stopped?
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Dead Bodies
There's a job opening I've recently seen advertised in the Sunday classifieds for working in a funeral home. I looked it over and considering applying....however...I think this is a profession sort of like proctologists and deep pit mining. I can see the need for it and admire those who do it well, but I'm pretty clear it's not for me.
I don't know which would bother me more:
a) coming home smelling of formaldehyde
b) feeling like I was exploiting vulnerable people when I sold overpriced caskets
c) working around dead bodies.
I have no issues with the idea of BEING dead. I'm just not sure I want to look at, much less handle, dead bodies as a routine part of my job. I've gazed upon my share of corpses. Doesn't freak me out. But still....
I don't know which would bother me more:
a) coming home smelling of formaldehyde
b) feeling like I was exploiting vulnerable people when I sold overpriced caskets
c) working around dead bodies.
I have no issues with the idea of BEING dead. I'm just not sure I want to look at, much less handle, dead bodies as a routine part of my job. I've gazed upon my share of corpses. Doesn't freak me out. But still....
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Addiction
I had a conversation recently with a friend about "addiction".
What images does that word conjure up in your head?
In my mind, addiction is a state of physical / psychological dependency on something which creates a state of pain/discomfort/ dis-ease with that something is removed.
Is it possible to develop a positive addiction?
If indeed I can make any activity, relationship or substance a REQUIREMENT for my comfort and peace of mind, is that not addiction?
What if I were to become addicted to learning, to seeking peace, to creating passion in the world...
When a CHOICE becomes patterned by repetition to the point that it becomes automatic we consider it a HABIT. When that HABIT becomes so much a part of our nature we feel great discomfort without the pattern it moves into the realm of ADDICTION - then what? Does adding the element of mandate demolish the positive force previously achieved by the same behavior when it was merely by choice?
Is MINDFULNESS inherently superior when assessing our actions...or can a rational justification be made for deliberately creating first habits and then positive addictions rather than staying in a position of choice with every act?
HMMMMM...... Things I wonder about.
What images does that word conjure up in your head?
In my mind, addiction is a state of physical / psychological dependency on something which creates a state of pain/discomfort/ dis-ease with that something is removed.
Is it possible to develop a positive addiction?
If indeed I can make any activity, relationship or substance a REQUIREMENT for my comfort and peace of mind, is that not addiction?
What if I were to become addicted to learning, to seeking peace, to creating passion in the world...
When a CHOICE becomes patterned by repetition to the point that it becomes automatic we consider it a HABIT. When that HABIT becomes so much a part of our nature we feel great discomfort without the pattern it moves into the realm of ADDICTION - then what? Does adding the element of mandate demolish the positive force previously achieved by the same behavior when it was merely by choice?
Is MINDFULNESS inherently superior when assessing our actions...or can a rational justification be made for deliberately creating first habits and then positive addictions rather than staying in a position of choice with every act?
HMMMMM...... Things I wonder about.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Pet Peeves
I was out wandering the blog world and came across a site that dealt with a coffee maker's angst. Some guy calling himself "Larry the Barista" ( http://barista-angst.blogspot.com/ )
ranted and raved over customers who adulterate the fine beverages he concocts with so much milk/sugar that all subtlety and character of the java is lost. While to a certain extent I could relate to his annoyance, the extent of his harsh judgment seemed entirely disproportionate to the situation. My initial response was to scorn him as inappreciative of the customers who are keeping his shop in business. I was baffled that he should be so mean spirited toward his clientele. So what if they are not all connoisseurs? If they come in and buy the coffee and have a good experience in the shop, isn't that all that really matters?? Not willing to submit myself to his scathing condemnation, I vowed I would never patronize his Walla Walla establishment, even though I've heard great things about it from others who have been there.
But then, I began doing a little inventory over my own pet peeves. In truth, the things that make me cranky are no more credible.
I abhor seeing men wear socks with sandals. It is SOOOOO uncool.
Then there is that whole hair comb-over thing for guys in hair-loss denial. Do they really think they are fooling anybody??
I grind my teeth when I see someone frantically jocky for the very best parking spot at the YMCA, because afterall, you wouldn't expect them to have to walk too far to go exercise, right?
I am annoyed to distraction by women with long acrylic nails, and even more so when they have quirky designs or faux gems attached.
I am appalled by people who insist I keep my dog on a leash, but allow their stupid cats to wander free to crap in my azaleas.
So, yeah, I have plenty of the judgmental bone going on in my own world. I guess I should lighten up on pointing fingers when others spout off, eh? What's it to me if this coffee guy thinks my preferences are worthy of ridicule? He probably wouldn't approve of how I take my pizza either....big deal. I suppose it takes all kinds.
ranted and raved over customers who adulterate the fine beverages he concocts with so much milk/sugar that all subtlety and character of the java is lost. While to a certain extent I could relate to his annoyance, the extent of his harsh judgment seemed entirely disproportionate to the situation. My initial response was to scorn him as inappreciative of the customers who are keeping his shop in business. I was baffled that he should be so mean spirited toward his clientele. So what if they are not all connoisseurs? If they come in and buy the coffee and have a good experience in the shop, isn't that all that really matters?? Not willing to submit myself to his scathing condemnation, I vowed I would never patronize his Walla Walla establishment, even though I've heard great things about it from others who have been there.
But then, I began doing a little inventory over my own pet peeves. In truth, the things that make me cranky are no more credible.
I abhor seeing men wear socks with sandals. It is SOOOOO uncool.
Then there is that whole hair comb-over thing for guys in hair-loss denial. Do they really think they are fooling anybody??
I grind my teeth when I see someone frantically jocky for the very best parking spot at the YMCA, because afterall, you wouldn't expect them to have to walk too far to go exercise, right?
I am annoyed to distraction by women with long acrylic nails, and even more so when they have quirky designs or faux gems attached.
I am appalled by people who insist I keep my dog on a leash, but allow their stupid cats to wander free to crap in my azaleas.
So, yeah, I have plenty of the judgmental bone going on in my own world. I guess I should lighten up on pointing fingers when others spout off, eh? What's it to me if this coffee guy thinks my preferences are worthy of ridicule? He probably wouldn't approve of how I take my pizza either....big deal. I suppose it takes all kinds.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Testing the Waters
Ya know how when you get on a website that's not done yet there are ususally pages that say "UNDER CONSTRUCTION". I need a sign like that for my life...cause I most definitely am not done with me yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
