Words

Life

laa da da da da

by Andrea Elizabeth

(the violinist on the right is no longer with them. See the following link for the new violinist who also sang the first song mentioned below. “Norwegian Wood” is in my head because I bought the album. The concert was less classical sounding.)

I don’t know if this is what Sören Kierkegaard meant in The Concept of Anxiety, 50 something minutes remaining, but what pops in my head is that silent anxiety as well as sudden exclamations are both demonic. He uses the d word loosely, I imagine. He uses this in context with “the reserved”. Much is made of introversion vs extroversion as personality traits, but I’m not sure introversion isn’t a coping mechanism possibly related to childhood trauma. One example is Ethan Hawke’s character in Dead Poet’s Society where Robin Williams coaxes him out of his shell to shout “Yawp! Sweaty Tooth Madman!” Exorcism much?

Another thought I’m having relates to a recent concert we went to by Time for Three, a trio with two violins and a double bass. The first sound was a sensitive, gentle but confident vocal solo with sensitive, quiet accompaniment consisting of a repetition of sounds that were complicated enough not to be boring. They are very experimental with their string effects too, which build up to dramatic, louder, and more traditional as well as eclectic offerings in a nicely Kierkegaardian continuity – the opposite of a sudden exclamation of anxiety.

This also makes me think of my recent sudden, horrifying gallbladder attack that led to emergency surgery. If the bile gets blocked, it’s going to eventually become intolerable.

So, if yesterday’s post was demonic, then hopefully it was not unnecessarily therapeutic. The reserved person has anxiety about their fits and who can handle them. So I imagine does the Asperger’s person.

Advertisements

by Andrea Elizabeth

lord and master

zowie

by Andrea Elizabeth

It is the second day of Lent and I’m not sure I should share my thoughts. Forgive me if not. But I want to be a writer, and I am a truth lover, and I don’t want to expose other people. You know, Charles Dickens was masterful with his characterizations. The last daughter and I were watching an episode of Little Dorrit, the newish BBC version, last evening and I don’t remember having caught the gatekeeper’s son’s fixation on his own death. He was constantly romanticizing what would be inscribed on his tombstone. When he had hope, it was a beautifully touching lifelong devotion to his wife. When he lost it, it was a weeping lament of his early death. This shows more of a devotion to sentiment than to a person.

Anyhow, I suppose Mr. Dickens personified flaws, but I have heard that some of his characters were based on real people. That almost seems dirty pool. And I wonder if he ever got in trouble for it. This is one reason I think it’s better to write about onesself. Then they’ll accuse you of narcissism, but at least you’re not bringing anyone else down with you. I suppose one could focus on particular faults in general, but John Cassian has already done that, and it can sound preachy by one who isn’t a preacher. I kind of like the old preaching lady in Elizabeth Gaskell’s Cranford, but again, it’s been done, and she is sort of negatively portrayed, even though she’s quaint and beloved.

I don’t mind rewording complicated things that I learn because then I feel I am sharing the joyous process of discovery and translating it into my own idiom. Idiomization however, can be criticized too, especially in Orthodoxy. Not that I’m being imaginative, which much has been written about, but I am maybe making things more fluid than they are taught. This is why there is a feud between me and academics. I mean a bloody feud. I mean a deep-seated, generational, geographical, out and out war with no prisoners. Even though some of the people I most wish I were friends with are academics. But I can’t be friends with them because we can’t stand what each other is fighting for. I’m a martyr for non-academicness even though they are the ones I learn from. I’m Joan of Arc and they are the inquisition who made her say things in order to take communion. I mean it. It’s been too long since I read the subtitles to the Maria Falconetti silent film that was taken from the actual proceedings so I don’t remember if what they told her to say was valid or not. It wasn’t valid in her situation, but it probably would have been good things to say in the proper context. This is why I listen to academics. They say the right things, but in the wrong way and to the wrong people and with the wrong emphasis and dogmatism. Way way way way way way way wrong.

So, you say, do you think everything you say could hold up to such scrutiny? Yes, and here’s why. Their rigidness is what makes them wrong. If words are jelly and you think they are steel then the implications are much different. Jelly!!! they scream. You are a post-modern, relativistic, amoral, unorthodox, prideful, convictionless, gnostic, deconstructionist! No, I’m half and half. I have no home. They don’t like me either. I am a structuralist where the structures are concrete, beautiful, eternal and necessary: but we can walk through them. And we can walk on water. And we can make heirs out of stones. So both of you can throw your stones at me but they will pass through. Which is more concrete, me or the stones? Whichever I want to be, but neither way will kill me. And I will probably feel more peaceful gathering those stones about me than with you.

Nevertheless I forgive you and hope you forgive me.

Russell Brand and Jordan Peterson

by Andrea Elizabeth

The title of the interview is Kindness vs Power, but I’d characterize it as friendly persuasion. Brand is wondrously floral. Peterson is the stem.

Improbable Planet by Hugh Ross

by Andrea Elizabeth

I like this description of the three categories of life, especially the respect to the second:

“Primitive life, that is, unicellular bacterial life, is but the simplest form of life on Earth. There are three other general divisions (under category 1 above) of purely physical life: (1) differentiated multicellular organisms (for example, fungi); (2) plants; and (3) animals. In addition to purely physical life, Earth today sustains two kinds of life that possess distinctly nonphysical attributes. One of these kinds is a group of animals that possesses a mind (category 2 above), a mind that is capable of experiencing and expressing emotions, exercising intellectual analysis, and making decisions in response to that analysis and the animal’s emotional state. All mind-possessing animals share in common the attribute of parents providing sacrificial care for their offspring. Animals in this category include all mammals and birds and a few of the more advanced reptilian species such as the crocodile and the alligator. Another kind of life-form possessing nonphysical attributes (category 3 above) is the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Human beings not only possess a mind, they also are endowed with a spirit. This spiritual component enables humans to engage in philosophy and theology and to address questions of ultimate meaning and purpose not only about themselves but also of the rest of Earth’s life and the entirety of the universe.”

The Great Unconformity

by Andrea Elizabeth

Earlier I was focusing on the oldest layer in the Grand Canyon which has a missing layer on top of it called the Great Unconformity that makes a big gap in the timeline. It’s also exposed in Missouri. This article explores it in more detail.

The older layer is precambrian, which is before organisms started introducing oxygen into the environment. The article suggests the above layers were eroded by traumatic continental uplift. I wonder if oxygenation also contributed to chemical weathering too, and if subsequent layers became more resistant to it.

New discoveries and ideas about the formation of the Grand Canyon

by Andrea Elizabeth

https://youtu.be/_UuDFkXxEnI

Peterson’s read his Solzhenitsyn

by Andrea Elizabeth

Or was it Dostoyevsky?

The reason most don’t see God is that they don’t look low enough

Upon further consideration

by Andrea Elizabeth

I’ve been thinking about my statement that I wouldn’t behave conscientiously if I didn’t have a fear of judgment day, and how that would be immoral to atheists. It’s not really true. I do have empathy for others, but mainly, I don’t want to grieve or be abandoned by the Holy Spirit.

Listening to my first popular philosophical atheist

by Andrea Elizabeth

Here’s Jordan Peterson’s intro to Sam Harris. At least they got to the subject of pain, which I mentioned last post as a more credible motivator for morality, imo, than the atheist explanation of perpetuating the species.

https://youtu.be/B9eKURpdFM8

Here’s the do-over which I find fascinating. They approached morality tangentially. Jordan plugged Orthodoxy!

https://youtu.be/v8XJsM4mz6E

In case I’ve sounded different either here or on FB, I don’t think I mentioned on the blog that I had surgery last week and am still taking a little of my prescription pain med.