Up until now, I have been convinced that the best way to keep a house-plant alive is for me to not own it. But I'm trying to be a responsible adult. Perhaps a time lapse study in the attention-span of a Collier is in order, but if I lose interest in the plant, so too will likely go the project. I don't feel like putting a picture up at the moment, suffice it to say that it looks much girlier in my apartment than it did in the greenhouse. I shall do my best.
If this works out, I may add a fish.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Reclinerland (i am in)
home is quiet, all-days of coffee, reheating, sitting, sipping, rubbing cold feet together, making song lists, word lists, new speakers, footrest, blue, confederacy, supply, exist, disconcerting apropos, a cycled apology: never delivered, ben folds, mozart, neil diamond, reclinerland.
armed against the beast, I set out in search of whiskey and chicken
Furukawa, situated as it is on a low plain between two mountain ranges, acts as a kind of geographical outlet of a wind-tunnel. And even on the street beside the 7-Eleven, just beyond the shoe-store and the petrol station, when the snow falls in sheet upon sheet from an utter blackness overhead and the wind oppresses, pushes your feet off course, it cannot be forgotten what an alien and ancient place this is. For the first time, I felt my latitude and the nearness of the sea--stinging my face, and pressing on the back of my legs through the jeans--and I begin (only begin mind you) to understand the Russians.
This I write from my laptop inside my moderately-well-heated apartment, just moments away from falling back into the recliner I just bought from the department store.
But I must say the smartest investment I ever made was my NorthFace synthetic. It keeps me safe, at all costs, like Dick Cheney.
This I write from my laptop inside my moderately-well-heated apartment, just moments away from falling back into the recliner I just bought from the department store.
But I must say the smartest investment I ever made was my NorthFace synthetic. It keeps me safe, at all costs, like Dick Cheney.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Dawkins Thus Far (if you enjoy that kind of thing)
I'm not that far into The God Delusion, so I'll reserve final judgments until I get through his argument. So far, however, I have noted that he delves far too deeply into the intent of the authors of works he cites either to support his assertions or in order to debunk religious ideas.
Regarding his approach to "NOMA," Gould's proposition of 'non-overlapping magisteria,' which states that, "the net, or magisterium, of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap..." Dawkins writes that he "cannot believe that Gould could possibly meant much of what he wrote," presumably because he thinks Gould is in agreement with him, and only offering the proposition that on the question of the existence of God, scientists can neither confirm nor deny, they "simply can't comment on it as scientists," in order to placate an unworthy but belligerent adversary. Perhaps this is so... perhaps Gould has even stated this was the case. But if not, then why raise the issue, and if so, why not cite it? Whether or not Gould really meant what he wrote, I mean really really meant it, for reals, I think is beside the point. The question is does the argument hold sway? Is it correct? Is it flawed, and if so, is there any way to state it more accurately, and if not, can we debunk it? Surely that is the real test, and one need not go on defending the intentions of the man whose ideas one is disputing. I'm sure he wouldn't have taken it personally.
Perhaps, since this is not the crux of his argument, such rhetorical flare is forgivable.
But then concerning those theists who support this idea of NOMA, he begins again, citing a ridiculous double-blind study (truly ridiculous, mind you) meant to determine what effect, if any, intercessory prayer had on the sick. When predictably the study failed to show positive results for prayer, the study was criticized, and Raymond Lawrence wrote that responsible religious leaders would 'breathe a sigh of relief' that no such evidence was produced, Dawkins asks, "Would he have sung a different tune if the Benson study had succeeded... maybe not, but you can be certain that plenty of other pastors and theologians would." Ah yes, the infallible, "you would have fallen into my logic trap if only the facts were different" argument. True enough.
What actually concerns me more than the fallacious pursuit of the argument is what seems to be his entire approach. He constructs his adversary out of many diverse opinions and when one fails to deliver what he assumes it will, he shifts to another source. I suppose it is common to utilize many opposing voices in order to show that one is taking a holistic approach, but on the other hand, on highly complex belief systems, it cannot be responsible to shift between the views of those who share nearly nothing in common in their separate approaches to religion. Might it be more effective to take on each argument separately, and to separately show each to be mistaken? Perhaps this is not the way to a best-seller. Might I begin conjecturing on intention here? Perhaps not germane.
To be honest, I think part of Dawkins' argument--the part that states that the question "Does God exist?" is a scientific question, and is therefore subject to scientific inquiry--is dead-on correct. Of course, the problem then becomes how does one define the parameters for God. Dawkins seems to take the approach that the most widely held belief is the most logical to be tested. But this is not science. There is not so much consensus as we might imagine... even so, go for it. Although other parameters will also be difficult. We have to stipulate that order and structure and such are not evidence of a God. Neither would evolution, not gravitation, nor any other natural phenomenon be considered such. (And I think it is not just perfectly reasonable, but absolutely necessary that they shouldn't be, by the way).
Hmm, okay. I'm not a scientist, so much. I don't know where to start looking for a scientific way to test for God in a system that seems, by design, to exclude Her. But if God is in all things, surely there is some way to set that experiment up... perhaps we're not to that point yet.
I also buy into another part of his argument (and have been making a similar argument for years) that just because you can put together a question in a proper grammatical structure doesn't mean it's a worthwhile question to pursue. I'd apply that to the "Does God exist?" question. Not to say that the question of God's existence can't be worthwhile. It just seems to me, not so much. My reading on this question in particular, while not encyclopedic by any means, is rather extensive, and I've yet to find an approach that satisfies. Does God exist? Well, let me chase my tail around on that for 30 or so years and let you know what I come up with... Yes, probably. No, probably not. And I'm not sure. All defensible, all difficult to come to, and their importance is weighted heavily on the reader's understanding of the consequence of belief (I might write another tome or so about this topic, so instead I'll just wrap up).
Dawkins suggests pursuing moral choice and cutting out the "middle-man" (his word for God or religion--he uses them interchangeably in some ways that he probably ought not). On this, mostly, I think he is dead on. What is the impetus for the human desire for moral action. It seems to me to have been produced evolutionarily. Fine. And when I suffer, I pray for comfort. Fine. And when I am at the beach, I am either thinking of density, and refraction/reflection, gravity, and the curve of the earth, or I am thinking of the elusive heart of God... Fine. What's the problem? Why so upset? Unless you are not arguing against belief in one thing, but against irresponsible belief in anything... again, I'm on board.
Regarding his approach to "NOMA," Gould's proposition of 'non-overlapping magisteria,' which states that, "the net, or magisterium, of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap..." Dawkins writes that he "cannot believe that Gould could possibly meant much of what he wrote," presumably because he thinks Gould is in agreement with him, and only offering the proposition that on the question of the existence of God, scientists can neither confirm nor deny, they "simply can't comment on it as scientists," in order to placate an unworthy but belligerent adversary. Perhaps this is so... perhaps Gould has even stated this was the case. But if not, then why raise the issue, and if so, why not cite it? Whether or not Gould really meant what he wrote, I mean really really meant it, for reals, I think is beside the point. The question is does the argument hold sway? Is it correct? Is it flawed, and if so, is there any way to state it more accurately, and if not, can we debunk it? Surely that is the real test, and one need not go on defending the intentions of the man whose ideas one is disputing. I'm sure he wouldn't have taken it personally.
Perhaps, since this is not the crux of his argument, such rhetorical flare is forgivable.
But then concerning those theists who support this idea of NOMA, he begins again, citing a ridiculous double-blind study (truly ridiculous, mind you) meant to determine what effect, if any, intercessory prayer had on the sick. When predictably the study failed to show positive results for prayer, the study was criticized, and Raymond Lawrence wrote that responsible religious leaders would 'breathe a sigh of relief' that no such evidence was produced, Dawkins asks, "Would he have sung a different tune if the Benson study had succeeded... maybe not, but you can be certain that plenty of other pastors and theologians would." Ah yes, the infallible, "you would have fallen into my logic trap if only the facts were different" argument. True enough.
What actually concerns me more than the fallacious pursuit of the argument is what seems to be his entire approach. He constructs his adversary out of many diverse opinions and when one fails to deliver what he assumes it will, he shifts to another source. I suppose it is common to utilize many opposing voices in order to show that one is taking a holistic approach, but on the other hand, on highly complex belief systems, it cannot be responsible to shift between the views of those who share nearly nothing in common in their separate approaches to religion. Might it be more effective to take on each argument separately, and to separately show each to be mistaken? Perhaps this is not the way to a best-seller. Might I begin conjecturing on intention here? Perhaps not germane.
To be honest, I think part of Dawkins' argument--the part that states that the question "Does God exist?" is a scientific question, and is therefore subject to scientific inquiry--is dead-on correct. Of course, the problem then becomes how does one define the parameters for God. Dawkins seems to take the approach that the most widely held belief is the most logical to be tested. But this is not science. There is not so much consensus as we might imagine... even so, go for it. Although other parameters will also be difficult. We have to stipulate that order and structure and such are not evidence of a God. Neither would evolution, not gravitation, nor any other natural phenomenon be considered such. (And I think it is not just perfectly reasonable, but absolutely necessary that they shouldn't be, by the way).
Hmm, okay. I'm not a scientist, so much. I don't know where to start looking for a scientific way to test for God in a system that seems, by design, to exclude Her. But if God is in all things, surely there is some way to set that experiment up... perhaps we're not to that point yet.
I also buy into another part of his argument (and have been making a similar argument for years) that just because you can put together a question in a proper grammatical structure doesn't mean it's a worthwhile question to pursue. I'd apply that to the "Does God exist?" question. Not to say that the question of God's existence can't be worthwhile. It just seems to me, not so much. My reading on this question in particular, while not encyclopedic by any means, is rather extensive, and I've yet to find an approach that satisfies. Does God exist? Well, let me chase my tail around on that for 30 or so years and let you know what I come up with... Yes, probably. No, probably not. And I'm not sure. All defensible, all difficult to come to, and their importance is weighted heavily on the reader's understanding of the consequence of belief (I might write another tome or so about this topic, so instead I'll just wrap up).
Dawkins suggests pursuing moral choice and cutting out the "middle-man" (his word for God or religion--he uses them interchangeably in some ways that he probably ought not). On this, mostly, I think he is dead on. What is the impetus for the human desire for moral action. It seems to me to have been produced evolutionarily. Fine. And when I suffer, I pray for comfort. Fine. And when I am at the beach, I am either thinking of density, and refraction/reflection, gravity, and the curve of the earth, or I am thinking of the elusive heart of God... Fine. What's the problem? Why so upset? Unless you are not arguing against belief in one thing, but against irresponsible belief in anything... again, I'm on board.
new (nothing is)
there is somewhat of solomon trips tongue and negative space filling in with black ink. sennsei. the recommended i. commended she. reads the feet no longer there. one old, a scent of paint. one fresh, the lingering smoke. the teeth of december. she leaves traces from her home in the northeast, the dry southwest, america, all lands of spanish and english. if i follow there, silent, snow-covered cheek, breast, a watch i haven't bought, a letter i haven't received (sent), something new under a new sun...
(forming the katakana,)
if i trace the lines
over and over while still,
i will see new sounds
Monday, December 22, 2008
after a long nap
I awoke a day-and-a-half later, my vocal cords still slightly inflamed, feeling drowsy and quiet. There would be another trip to the dentist. On the way I would try the coffee place that had been recommended to me.
The sweet older man who owns and manages has traveled the world teaching others to select and brew coffee. And I could not--though I almost did--bring myself to add any sugar or cream. It seemed it would have been against nature. The first cup I would have from this man's shop, perfect before it touched the tongue. The first day I do not feel compelled in some direction, and can read my favorite collection of stories.
On the way home from the tooth-cleaning, I veer off the usual streets and come to a little shrine. Even the statues are feeling cold--it is so gray and wet today--and need to bundle themselves.
Last week while I was lost and wandering I happened across a Jazz Club that I have been searching for for weeks. Today, I cannot find it again. And there is a cemetery nearby I would like to see again. But for now it is time to eat. I will find things again. It is inevitable.
The sweet older man who owns and manages has traveled the world teaching others to select and brew coffee. And I could not--though I almost did--bring myself to add any sugar or cream. It seemed it would have been against nature. The first cup I would have from this man's shop, perfect before it touched the tongue. The first day I do not feel compelled in some direction, and can read my favorite collection of stories.
On the way home from the tooth-cleaning, I veer off the usual streets and come to a little shrine. Even the statues are feeling cold--it is so gray and wet today--and need to bundle themselves.
Last week while I was lost and wandering I happened across a Jazz Club that I have been searching for for weeks. Today, I cannot find it again. And there is a cemetery nearby I would like to see again. But for now it is time to eat. I will find things again. It is inevitable.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The All-You-Can-Drink
It's between 30 and 40 dollars per person. You get several courses of some pretty good food, including a very interesting beef stew, sushi, pasta (italian), thin-sliced smoked pork-loin, oysters & scallops in what seemed a variation on hollandaise, pizza, dessert, and as much alcohol as you can order and put away. Perhaps this is okay for Japanese people. It proved relatively dangerous for this American.
And in the morning, as I walk to work, there is the deep and compelling sound of drums being beat. I might be late. But still I am drawn. What I find is a steam engine. A train. And the tribal sounds surround, but their source is unclear, somewhere in the tunnel nearby. A mixture I did not understand, but found deeply beautiful, as I also found the Japanese Teacher's description of her volunteer work in Cambodia. Her English is concise, and she cannot become overly elaborate.
She describes that which makes her quiet. The moon is large and white. The morning is morning, and full of light. The night is truly black; it is more night than I have seen. I say this is compelling imagery. I'm sorry, she says.
And in the morning, as I walk to work, there is the deep and compelling sound of drums being beat. I might be late. But still I am drawn. What I find is a steam engine. A train. And the tribal sounds surround, but their source is unclear, somewhere in the tunnel nearby. A mixture I did not understand, but found deeply beautiful, as I also found the Japanese Teacher's description of her volunteer work in Cambodia. Her English is concise, and she cannot become overly elaborate.
She describes that which makes her quiet. The moon is large and white. The morning is morning, and full of light. The night is truly black; it is more night than I have seen. I say this is compelling imagery. I'm sorry, she says.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
A Pleasant Generic Holiday and a Reasonably Enjoyable Time
It is that time of year once again. A time loosely defined by the interim between Thanksgiving and Christmas. A day unspecified and often uncelebrated. Even when it is celebrated, we may not even know it has happened until much later. We all think of something that may have occurred sometime long ago, that thing we all believe, you know? And it's very special, and so we celebrate.
We decorate. Who can forget the "spherical decoration," or the "tree object?" What about when your father/mother/relative, gathered your whole (group of like-minded individuals) and sang the Generic Holiday song? The memories are not priceless... not even expensive, but you will certainly have to think about where you go out to dinner for the next week or so.
So have a generic holiday. Remember things. And stuff. And other things. And be pleased about them.
We decorate. Who can forget the "spherical decoration," or the "tree object?" What about when your father/mother/relative, gathered your whole (group of like-minded individuals) and sang the Generic Holiday song? The memories are not priceless... not even expensive, but you will certainly have to think about where you go out to dinner for the next week or so.
So have a generic holiday. Remember things. And stuff. And other things. And be pleased about them.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Gentlman Jack's Troubles with the Maid
The battery in my camera has died, and I have been scouring my possessions for the charger, which may--I am beginning to acquiesce--have been left in the states. All the same, the pictures I would have taken yesterday would have been giant white squares (or small ones, depending on the resolution you choose) as the snow was everywhere. A white-out I believe it is called. I went to a hotspring, an Onsen, I think, and sat outside in the warm water as the snow fell from above and the crystals were blown from the piles of fallen snow and steam rose from the water. I could see nothing, but it was still rather enjoyable. Later I ate dinner next to a run-down ferris-wheel with the words "America World" written in giant yellow letters, meant to be lit up at night in bold neon.
Today, I watched the new James Bond and thought of home. There was a little sadness, and so I decided to see what has been written online about culture-shock... a rather dull pastime, I must say, but I ran across the Worldwide Classroom, which uses the following to describe the honeymoon phase of assimilation/non-assimilation into a culture: "he or she will be taken to the show places, pampered and petted, and in a press interview will speak glowingly about progress, goodwill, and international amity. If he returns home may well write a book about his pleasant if superficial experience abroad."
Ah, yes. The common man's plight abroad. I do so praise the locals in many of my press interviews that I begin to think perhaps I am just another statistic, and that soon enough I'll begin to go through an adjustment period in which I develop difficult feelings toward my butler, animosity toward my inept staff of chauffeurs, chefs, and personal shoppers, and of course, as WWC puts it, "there is maid trouble."
Whatever shall I do?
A note to those planning to live in a castle in some distant land: there is maid trouble. Be forewarned.
I do miss everybody, though, so get on Skype and call me... I'm usually around Monday-Thursday between 7:00am and 10:00am, and between 4:00pm and 8:00pm Texas time. Or drop a line or something... I am making friends, but the small-talk required is monotonous.
Today, I watched the new James Bond and thought of home. There was a little sadness, and so I decided to see what has been written online about culture-shock... a rather dull pastime, I must say, but I ran across the Worldwide Classroom, which uses the following to describe the honeymoon phase of assimilation/non-assimilation into a culture: "he or she will be taken to the show places, pampered and petted, and in a press interview will speak glowingly about progress, goodwill, and international amity. If he returns home may well write a book about his pleasant if superficial experience abroad."
Ah, yes. The common man's plight abroad. I do so praise the locals in many of my press interviews that I begin to think perhaps I am just another statistic, and that soon enough I'll begin to go through an adjustment period in which I develop difficult feelings toward my butler, animosity toward my inept staff of chauffeurs, chefs, and personal shoppers, and of course, as WWC puts it, "there is maid trouble."
Whatever shall I do?
A note to those planning to live in a castle in some distant land: there is maid trouble. Be forewarned.
I do miss everybody, though, so get on Skype and call me... I'm usually around Monday-Thursday between 7:00am and 10:00am, and between 4:00pm and 8:00pm Texas time. Or drop a line or something... I am making friends, but the small-talk required is monotonous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)