Yesterday, a very dear friend took me to the best place in the world: The Natural Gardener. My daughter got to feed grape leaves to goats, watch chickens, and they have got some of the best gardens I have ever seen. Why, why, why have I not gone before??? This place reminds me of a time when I was very young when Mom took us to a gardening center that had a lot of concrete bridges, animals, and things, and I thought that the place was an enchanted place that an evil witch had turned into stone. This place was the enchanted place, minus the evil witch.
So... Olive Trees were on sale. To make matters more enticing, they have a garden where they planted several olive trees, and they were... perfect. Looking at the varieties in stock, it just so happened that they had two Italian species, the Pendolino and the Leccino, and they would bear fruit if they were together. (!) It would be like planting a long and fruitful marriage in my backyard.. with olives.
Well, I get home and hubby is less enthusiastic. He's a little more concerned with practical things, like root systems and yard space. How can I transport him to The Natural Gardener to see that Italy is for lovers? How can I communicate the glory of the trees if he works all day?
His words: "What happened to your idea about the butterfly garden?"
I did get seeds for that... I just got olives as well.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Break Through
If you haven't noticed it by now, I have an awesome Hubby. (Collective "Aw" inserted here...) Yesterday I got a debilitating migraine while we were working in the yard, and my daughter promptly had an allergic reaction to cucumbers and we had a long night. Needless to say, the Tylenol PM did not work its magic last night and this morning, for the lack of a better term, sucked.
So how did Hubby rise to the occasion? He fixed breakfast, tried to corral the baby in the kitchen, and let me keep the light off in the kitchen though he steadfastly read the paper like he always does. He tried to keep her from screeching - she has an amazing ability to reach high decibel levels without warning, and let me heal this morning. This is the only way I am able to function this morning - let alone, blog this morning, without checking myself into the hospital.
But in my pain I learned something. I never have liked drinking alcohol, which may sound like a good thing, but it really puts a damper on one's social life. Other teetotalers will agree that when one does not drink, everybody who is drinking seems to think that they are making some statement of being 'better' or more moral than everyone who is when it's just not true. Like Doc in Cannery Row, sometimes making a lie up puts people more at ease with my choices, so instead of "I don't like to drink," I'll say, "I'm the designated driver." This is still a problem at bars, parties, or any celebration that usually brings socially acceptable levels of libations. "How much wine is your husband planning on drinking??" is a pretty normal response.
So, what does drinking and migraines have to do with one another? The fish-eye lens. It's that feeling that you can only focus on one thing at a time very closely, and as soon as your focus moves, you can only focus on the new thing then. That is precisely what a migraine feels like to me, accompanied by a massive amount of pain, and it is also how I feel when I am feeling buzzed... albeit with less pain. I have suffered from migraines for as long as I can remember, and I have suffered from alcohol for a relatively short time, and so it only makes sense that I associate more pain with the fish-eye lens than I do pleasure. The taste of alcohol has often been considered an acquired taste... why would I give myself a chance to acquire such a taste if it means pain?
I hope this explains to everybody who I might have offended (brothers, friends, and Hubby included,) why I have not appropriately appreciated your liquors. This is not meant to excuse me from trying it - I hope to one differentiate my fish-eye lens aversion, but maybe this can help people understand migraines as well. The worst part about them is that I look normal, only lazy, drunk, or hung over. If I looked physically as bad as I felt, I would be deathly green and in need of a brain transfusion.
Perhaps more people associate the way I look with a migraine to a wonderful night on the town, desensitizing them to my condition? Food for thought.
So how did Hubby rise to the occasion? He fixed breakfast, tried to corral the baby in the kitchen, and let me keep the light off in the kitchen though he steadfastly read the paper like he always does. He tried to keep her from screeching - she has an amazing ability to reach high decibel levels without warning, and let me heal this morning. This is the only way I am able to function this morning - let alone, blog this morning, without checking myself into the hospital.
But in my pain I learned something. I never have liked drinking alcohol, which may sound like a good thing, but it really puts a damper on one's social life. Other teetotalers will agree that when one does not drink, everybody who is drinking seems to think that they are making some statement of being 'better' or more moral than everyone who is when it's just not true. Like Doc in Cannery Row, sometimes making a lie up puts people more at ease with my choices, so instead of "I don't like to drink," I'll say, "I'm the designated driver." This is still a problem at bars, parties, or any celebration that usually brings socially acceptable levels of libations. "How much wine is your husband planning on drinking??" is a pretty normal response.
So, what does drinking and migraines have to do with one another? The fish-eye lens. It's that feeling that you can only focus on one thing at a time very closely, and as soon as your focus moves, you can only focus on the new thing then. That is precisely what a migraine feels like to me, accompanied by a massive amount of pain, and it is also how I feel when I am feeling buzzed... albeit with less pain. I have suffered from migraines for as long as I can remember, and I have suffered from alcohol for a relatively short time, and so it only makes sense that I associate more pain with the fish-eye lens than I do pleasure. The taste of alcohol has often been considered an acquired taste... why would I give myself a chance to acquire such a taste if it means pain?
I hope this explains to everybody who I might have offended (brothers, friends, and Hubby included,) why I have not appropriately appreciated your liquors. This is not meant to excuse me from trying it - I hope to one differentiate my fish-eye lens aversion, but maybe this can help people understand migraines as well. The worst part about them is that I look normal, only lazy, drunk, or hung over. If I looked physically as bad as I felt, I would be deathly green and in need of a brain transfusion.
Perhaps more people associate the way I look with a migraine to a wonderful night on the town, desensitizing them to my condition? Food for thought.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Truth and Beauty
July 5th on The Colbert Report, the theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku, made some pretty interesting claims. For example, some of the things we have dreamed up in SciFi will make it into reality in the not so distant future, like Time Travel. When Stephen Colbert mentioned that we would already know about it because we would see the people traveling back in time, Kaku said that we will have an invisibility cloak within the next ten years. Um, okay. That's going to make marking absences in class a little more difficult, but whatever.
Kaku had also mentioned the illusive link between Quantum theory and Cosmology, saying that we are looking for a "1 inch equation." He alludes to the E=Mc2 equation. I asked hubby, "what if the link is just not so simple or elegant as E=Mc2?" What if we are ruling out the "mind of God" connection because we want something so small that it can fit on a license plate? (see http://mkaku.org/ ). Hubby answered that usually the most simple is usually the right answer, and we promptly started washing the dishes.
Fast forward to a very enlightening conversation I had with Rich Tollerton yesterday. He was referring to some reading he has been doing about how science and religion have interacted through the ages and came up with a quip that stopped me dead in my tracks. When asked to write it down to be quoted, he was hesitant, but came up with "[When facts are dealt with,] scientists are concerned with beauty." but when he first said this, he said something more like "Scientists seem to be looking more for beauty than truth." (I think he found this comment to be too damning for scientists, whom he emphatically supports/reads/enjoys; this was spoken more in frustration I think, but I digress.)
This reminds me of Einstein who rejected a lot of proven material because it was not beautiful and it was too complicated. It also reminds me of Aristotle, the Father of Science, who discussed his scientific hypothesis with other people without trying anything out. Truly, we have a lot of stuff to rule out to even form a hypothesis, (can I mention the parental anecdote of attempting to figure out why a baby is crying? 'Is the diaper wet? Is she hungry? Is she hot? Is there some variable I'm not aware of?') but can't this process of ruling extraneous material out end up being less about trying to discover truth and more about the justification of one's preferences?
I've also been reading a lot lately on the power of assumption and how assuming can be helpful. If you had to prove to yourself every morning that your car will turn on when you turn the key in the ignition, chances are you would be late a lot; however, if you assume that your car will start no matter what, there are chances that you will be very wrong and, perhaps, this assumption could be harmful if you don't, say add oil to it and maintain it because you just assume that it will all be okay.
So, in conclusion, I am not all that sure of Michio Kaku's hypothesis that we will go sneaking around invisible, or that it is even a good idea, (can I say terrorist attack?) but I do hope for the part about unifying the micro to the macro in physics, I just don't think it has to be so simple to be correct or even work, and, frankly, I do not trust Michio Kaku. He's too... flashy. I'm sure the long, silver hair and bombastic claims get him coveted spots on the Colbert Report and other perks, reminiscent of Tycho Brahe, (had to throw that in, Rich,) but that doesn't make him reliable.
Maybe what we should be looking for, not just in science but in art, entertainment, history, and current events, is the reliability factor - not just how cool something looks.
Kaku had also mentioned the illusive link between Quantum theory and Cosmology, saying that we are looking for a "1 inch equation." He alludes to the E=Mc2 equation. I asked hubby, "what if the link is just not so simple or elegant as E=Mc2?" What if we are ruling out the "mind of God" connection because we want something so small that it can fit on a license plate? (see http://mkaku.org/ ). Hubby answered that usually the most simple is usually the right answer, and we promptly started washing the dishes.
Fast forward to a very enlightening conversation I had with Rich Tollerton yesterday. He was referring to some reading he has been doing about how science and religion have interacted through the ages and came up with a quip that stopped me dead in my tracks. When asked to write it down to be quoted, he was hesitant, but came up with "[When facts are dealt with,] scientists are concerned with beauty." but when he first said this, he said something more like "Scientists seem to be looking more for beauty than truth." (I think he found this comment to be too damning for scientists, whom he emphatically supports/reads/enjoys; this was spoken more in frustration I think, but I digress.)
This reminds me of Einstein who rejected a lot of proven material because it was not beautiful and it was too complicated. It also reminds me of Aristotle, the Father of Science, who discussed his scientific hypothesis with other people without trying anything out. Truly, we have a lot of stuff to rule out to even form a hypothesis, (can I mention the parental anecdote of attempting to figure out why a baby is crying? 'Is the diaper wet? Is she hungry? Is she hot? Is there some variable I'm not aware of?') but can't this process of ruling extraneous material out end up being less about trying to discover truth and more about the justification of one's preferences?
I've also been reading a lot lately on the power of assumption and how assuming can be helpful. If you had to prove to yourself every morning that your car will turn on when you turn the key in the ignition, chances are you would be late a lot; however, if you assume that your car will start no matter what, there are chances that you will be very wrong and, perhaps, this assumption could be harmful if you don't, say add oil to it and maintain it because you just assume that it will all be okay.
So, in conclusion, I am not all that sure of Michio Kaku's hypothesis that we will go sneaking around invisible, or that it is even a good idea, (can I say terrorist attack?) but I do hope for the part about unifying the micro to the macro in physics, I just don't think it has to be so simple to be correct or even work, and, frankly, I do not trust Michio Kaku. He's too... flashy. I'm sure the long, silver hair and bombastic claims get him coveted spots on the Colbert Report and other perks, reminiscent of Tycho Brahe, (had to throw that in, Rich,) but that doesn't make him reliable.
Maybe what we should be looking for, not just in science but in art, entertainment, history, and current events, is the reliability factor - not just how cool something looks.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tunes vs Tomes...
The Studio is almost done and Hubby and I are (imagine this,) tired of spending money. It gets old: take the plastic out of the wallet and swipe, then watch as the money you have saved gradually disappears. Granted, we saved the money to build The Studio, and we do not live beyond our means, but it wears on us, and so now I have a dilemma.
I am debating which high tech appliance to buy: the Kindle or an I Pod. This debate has gotten me to question things about my values, who I have become, and who I will be because I don't really want to buy both (no matter how cheap the Kindles are getting!) Here's the pros and cons of each:
I Pod Nano: I did have an I Pod Shuffle, which I loved, but it won't turn on and play anymore. It decided to do this on a 6 hour trip without warning, leaving me high and dry. The reasons to get one include that it plays in the car and I can download podcasts to it, (not to mention audio books,) and I could also take it running with me. It has been mentioned that my phone can do these things too. Yes, but the battery life would be greatly compromised, and it is heavy. Hubby also mentioned that he still has not looked at the Shuffle yet to see if it is truly dead. I argue that the police don't call him instead of the coroner for a reason, but I digress.
Kindle: I read a lot... when I can. The books I read can get heavy, and I need to be able to nurse and read. Also, I can get a lot of books on a Kindle and tote it around. During school, I can be reading 2-3 books a week, so any help would be appreciated. Someone mentioned that some readers can be used as Ipods, which would help the decision making process, though I wouldn't go jogging with a Kindle, but do I need music when I jog?
Let me know what you think!
I am debating which high tech appliance to buy: the Kindle or an I Pod. This debate has gotten me to question things about my values, who I have become, and who I will be because I don't really want to buy both (no matter how cheap the Kindles are getting!) Here's the pros and cons of each:
I Pod Nano: I did have an I Pod Shuffle, which I loved, but it won't turn on and play anymore. It decided to do this on a 6 hour trip without warning, leaving me high and dry. The reasons to get one include that it plays in the car and I can download podcasts to it, (not to mention audio books,) and I could also take it running with me. It has been mentioned that my phone can do these things too. Yes, but the battery life would be greatly compromised, and it is heavy. Hubby also mentioned that he still has not looked at the Shuffle yet to see if it is truly dead. I argue that the police don't call him instead of the coroner for a reason, but I digress.
Kindle: I read a lot... when I can. The books I read can get heavy, and I need to be able to nurse and read. Also, I can get a lot of books on a Kindle and tote it around. During school, I can be reading 2-3 books a week, so any help would be appreciated. Someone mentioned that some readers can be used as Ipods, which would help the decision making process, though I wouldn't go jogging with a Kindle, but do I need music when I jog?
Let me know what you think!
Friday, July 16, 2010
Toddler Time
It's been a while since posting partially because my computer got stolen from school (long story,) and since summer started, I have not gotten as many breaks as I do while teaching; considering how many breaks teachers get, this says a lot. I figured before a new post, an update would help:
The Studio: Hubby finished The Studio... sort of. It is almost ready for final inspection, it has studio equipment in it, and I am starting to see him a little more often. Now we have shifted our focus to making the house more baby proof, hence...
Daughter: She started walking at around 11 months, running at 12. She is everywhere and into everything. I seem to remember Mom telling me repeatedly, "Stop digging!" and now I understand her frustration. What used to take me an hour takes about 3 times as long because everything I do, she can undo in less time. The recycling has been our biggest battle so far. I spend an hour or so on the kitchen while she is strewing her toys across the den, and while I pick up her toys, she goes through the recycling by picking things out and tossing them over her shoulder. Wow. But it has been nice to be able to set her down, and I love the hugs and kisses. She is beginning to sleep in her own bed, and her babble is getting more and more adult-like and less baby... granted it sounds more like a foreign language than English, but she's getting there. We joke that she bypassed English and went straight for Japanese... maybe that means she will be good at the piano???
Projects: Knitting has been slow. I have not sewn anything in months. I have, however, assembled more IKEA furniture alone in the past month than I have in my entire life. Storage in The Studio was a must and I when I can help Hubby, I do.
Reading: I finally read The Little Prince; while it was enlightening, I'm not sure about it being enjoyable. I understand how perhaps reading it in French would be more understandable, but this is not a kid's book. Kids are literal thinkers until the frontal cortex has developed, hence adulthood, and granted some kids develop faster, these kids are usually more sensitive. Just watching Disney's Winny the Pooh brought tears to my eyes, and when I was little, I never made it through I Love You Forever or The Giving Tree, and I could not grasp the concept that Puff the Magic Dragon was not real, and it was okay that he was going to be lonely. Sometimes kid's books are meant for adults, (Can I reference The Giver, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, or anything by Dahl, anyone?) and the adult concepts can be, ironically, to let adults detach themselves from their childhoods. I cannot see how these books can provide anything helpful to children, but I do see how they can be helpful to the adult writers.
With that said, I want to know whether the author intended the prince to be killed by the snake, if the Prince was supposed to be a metaphor, a mirage, or to be taken literally, and if the snake was supposed to be an archetypal symbol for knowledge. It's kinda bugging me. Mainly the question about if the Prince was supposed to die and the author just could not handle the truth...
I'm currently reading Astros Polyp, which I've had to set down because life has been hectic. It's good. The artistry is amazing, the story is spot on, and the philosophical edge is wonderful. The beginning put me off last year, with his apartment building burning down and all, but this year I have gotten better at distancing myself from the story enough to make it through half of the book. With that said, I see Hubby in Astros and I'm very concerned about a certain Little Prince, but that's another story.
I hope all is well with everyone, and I plan to post more regularly.
The Studio: Hubby finished The Studio... sort of. It is almost ready for final inspection, it has studio equipment in it, and I am starting to see him a little more often. Now we have shifted our focus to making the house more baby proof, hence...
Daughter: She started walking at around 11 months, running at 12. She is everywhere and into everything. I seem to remember Mom telling me repeatedly, "Stop digging!" and now I understand her frustration. What used to take me an hour takes about 3 times as long because everything I do, she can undo in less time. The recycling has been our biggest battle so far. I spend an hour or so on the kitchen while she is strewing her toys across the den, and while I pick up her toys, she goes through the recycling by picking things out and tossing them over her shoulder. Wow. But it has been nice to be able to set her down, and I love the hugs and kisses. She is beginning to sleep in her own bed, and her babble is getting more and more adult-like and less baby... granted it sounds more like a foreign language than English, but she's getting there. We joke that she bypassed English and went straight for Japanese... maybe that means she will be good at the piano???
Projects: Knitting has been slow. I have not sewn anything in months. I have, however, assembled more IKEA furniture alone in the past month than I have in my entire life. Storage in The Studio was a must and I when I can help Hubby, I do.
Reading: I finally read The Little Prince; while it was enlightening, I'm not sure about it being enjoyable. I understand how perhaps reading it in French would be more understandable, but this is not a kid's book. Kids are literal thinkers until the frontal cortex has developed, hence adulthood, and granted some kids develop faster, these kids are usually more sensitive. Just watching Disney's Winny the Pooh brought tears to my eyes, and when I was little, I never made it through I Love You Forever or The Giving Tree, and I could not grasp the concept that Puff the Magic Dragon was not real, and it was okay that he was going to be lonely. Sometimes kid's books are meant for adults, (Can I reference The Giver, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, or anything by Dahl, anyone?) and the adult concepts can be, ironically, to let adults detach themselves from their childhoods. I cannot see how these books can provide anything helpful to children, but I do see how they can be helpful to the adult writers.
With that said, I want to know whether the author intended the prince to be killed by the snake, if the Prince was supposed to be a metaphor, a mirage, or to be taken literally, and if the snake was supposed to be an archetypal symbol for knowledge. It's kinda bugging me. Mainly the question about if the Prince was supposed to die and the author just could not handle the truth...
I'm currently reading Astros Polyp, which I've had to set down because life has been hectic. It's good. The artistry is amazing, the story is spot on, and the philosophical edge is wonderful. The beginning put me off last year, with his apartment building burning down and all, but this year I have gotten better at distancing myself from the story enough to make it through half of the book. With that said, I see Hubby in Astros and I'm very concerned about a certain Little Prince, but that's another story.
I hope all is well with everyone, and I plan to post more regularly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
