Acuity

For as long as i can remember— for as long as i've had any sort of wisdom or understanding (if indeed i have any of that even now) i have vascillated between envying you for your clarity of vision and resenting you for choosing that clarity with its apparently stark, achromatic nature over me, for whatever that might otherwise cost you in straightforwardness. But it is necessary to keep in mind that you don't have to fight for that clarity (as i, for example, would): it comes to you as naturally as the vision it comprises, or it doesn't come at all. And so it's impossible to resent you for the clarity by which you navigate just as it would be impossible to resent you for somehow having accepted the gift of vision—quite without respect to its clarity— in the first place, as though you had anything to do with it. The vision is a gift, and clarity is simply part of the vision; you do not choose to see what you see, and so by extension (one is left supposing) you do not choose how you see what you see.

Or at least i'm led to believe that's the case.

Upswing

Well now, that was enlightening conversation. i'd like to thank everyone who participated. But enough of this political and religious discourse, eh. Turns out i've found the cure for the flu. Now, it's become accepted dogma over the last, say, hundred years or so that there is no "cure" for a virus. That may be; but i've found o'er the last 24 hours that you can surely beat the hell outta 'em. Admittedly, the weapon sounds very much like a "punch bowl" that you'd likely find at the more popular kids' high school parties, but dude: within the flu, "comfortably numb" is a battle won. The most important ingredient is Johnny Walker Red. In fact, i don't remember if any of the other stuff really contributed much in addition. At any rate, it seemed as though a liberal (though carefully timed) application of dextromethorphan, guaifenesin, sundry nasal decongestants/ antihistimines, Tylenol, and 600 mil bullets of ibuprofen contributed to the cause. That last bit is where the timing is important. No good living through the flu if you turn yer liver into silly putty. At any rate, the cough/ sore throat combo had come to such a state that coughing was doing me no good-- i'd give a ginger li'l effort at coughing and then double over fairly confident that i was bleeding out through my gullet. Numb me enough, and i could cough like a man-- practically squeegeed my poor lungs clean. Oh and then i think sleeping for 11+ hours (aided by the Simply Sleep) helped pretty mightily as well. And while the nurses among you might well gasp in horror, you know you'd do the same thing. Now to patent it and push it through the FDA...

Other

Allow me to shove politics aside for a bit (as it presently nauseates me, and is back to a status quo not much worth chatting about anyhow), and present a thought.

There is a consideration that has bugged me for some years—although it'd be difficult to explain why exactly; and it might just lead to an interesting conversation (even if it's only a conceptually possible conversation, as most of you won't or can't be bothered to respond—communist firewalls, and so forth.) At any rate, do let's ruminate together.

There are a number of things that the Bible is less than transparent on, which most of you who aren't vapid Evangelical smiley faces would likely agree with. And to be sure, it doesn't claim to have a manageable, packaged answer for every problem life throws at us.* However, sometimes the issue in question is of such an important nature that the lack of a clear answer can drive one insane. Why, for example, is the wrong in divorcing a woman that the man then causes her to become an adultress? There's apparently no particular wrong in the divorce itself; only she is then caused to become an adultress and whoever marries her is an adulterer. What about the guy that does the divorcing: is he not also caused to become an adulterer just in case he marries again? Seems a tad one-sided, but it's good to be a guy and not a girl, i guess. Or shellfish: i dig the laws of separation and purity demanded of the Jews to cordon 'em off from the Gentiles, but did it have only to do with cultural separation, or was there some deeper reason that they shouldn't eat pigs and shrimp? —and i don’t mean health reasons. Was such food chosen just because the Gentiles du jour were into it, or did God have a very serious problem with folks eating pigs and shrimp in general? The point is, it's very often terribly difficult to ascertain (at least for me) what is demanded of me in a given situation, just because i absolutely cannot discern the why behind any possible what.

Here's my own quandary—and while it may sound silly to you, it's occasionally driven me to distraction. In Exodus, Moses was commanded to take off his shoes because the place where he was standing was holy. He then intuitively covered his face when he discovered he was in the presence of God. However in Isaiah, when the prophet sees the seraphs who stand before the Lord, they (presumably also by divine fiat) cover their feet (albeit with their wings), in addition to their faces. So i have for a long while wondered which is the correct posture to assume—specifically when i pray, and am most aware of standing in the presence of God. Do i cover my feet, or do i uncover my feet? Or does it only matter when it's God speaking to me, and not the other way 'round?




*(In fact, i'm starting to suspect that part of what's expected of us is that we make a good go of torturing ourselves to an early death trying to solve those problems, as opposed to just spending all that same energy and talent on anchoring ourselves to a pet scripture, however obliquely it treats the issue in question.)

Soupy Tuesday

Democracy has been dealt a painful blow today. Once again the United Sheep have voted for whom they were programmed to vote for-- apparently on no information whatsoever: McCain has garnered an ugly lead in the GOP race. On the bright side, it's pretty unthinkable that he has any hope of beating either Obama or Clinton, as he's an imbecile running on a platform of doing exactly what Bush has been doing, except more of it. (Of course, it was also unthinkable that he'd be taken seriously in the Repub race: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" comes to mind.) What, precisely, in the hell having been a p.o.w. might have to do with being a good problem solver/ leader of the free world i cannot pretend to apprehend; but tens of thousands of people went out to vote for him today with apparently just that relationship in mind. Every time i think the world is already a pretty bizarre place, and that people seem to put no effort or thought into what they are doing before they do it, something really big and public comes down the pipe to make it just that much stranger.

At any rate, if he manages to push Bush's incomprehensible budget proposal through, i'll just go ahead and start learning Mandarin and get back in shape for riding my bicycle about. i s'pose being indentured to China might simplify a few things; and that couldn't be altogether bad, eh?