I swear the Smith's I shop at is on the edge of another dimension or something.
For instance, I can always find a parking place near the door and a cart corral, even when they're busy. They always have one or two marked down jars of gefilte fish on the clearance shelves, although I have never seen a new jar anywhere on the regular shelves. Little things like that.
Today this happened.
I heard people talking in the next aisle. Voice 1 sounded like an older woman. Voice 2 sounded like a teen or twenty something guy. Voice 3 sounded like a middle aged woman.
Voice1: Oh, hello there!
Voice 2: Umh... hi...
Voice 3: Who was that?
Voice1: He's one of my pupils.
Voice3: *laughs* Is that where the scar came from?
Voice 1: Yes, it is.
I decided I really wanted to see these people, and maybe talk to them. By the time I got to the end of the aisle, there was nobody there but a man stocking cans of corned beef hash. He looked too old to be Voice2, but who knows? So, I asked him where the Gefilte fish is. He told me they don't carry it.
He wasn't Voice 2.
Monday, October 16, 2017
Thursday, September 28, 2017
I had a very good counselor who told me this about memories that aren't confirmed by other family members:
__________________
If we could wind back your memory like a film, we might not find a scene that exactly looks like what you remember. That's how it is for everyone's memory about everything. BUT, we would find that your memory is consistent in emotional content. Your memory of the location or the date or other small details may be inaccurate, but casting will be correct. Who the abuser was, and what sort of abuse it was will be accurate.
Our memories are how we move through life, and we get the gist of people right, because it can be important to our survival. Whether it happened in the back yard or on your Grandmother's sofa is not relevant.
False memories do happen, but they take a lot of work to create. The cases you may have heard of are made with hypnosis, heavy medication, and a bad shrink trying to force their patient to dig up supposedly repressed memories that may not even be there. They don't jive with other memories, and usually can't be made to fit into any reasonable time or space.
Memories that you recover yourself, you can trust. They're not so much repressed, as you just don't think about them. When you are emotionally ready to deal with them, they surface on their own. Or, they don't. It's okay either way.
_____________
At least, this is what I remember her saying...
__________________
If we could wind back your memory like a film, we might not find a scene that exactly looks like what you remember. That's how it is for everyone's memory about everything. BUT, we would find that your memory is consistent in emotional content. Your memory of the location or the date or other small details may be inaccurate, but casting will be correct. Who the abuser was, and what sort of abuse it was will be accurate.
Our memories are how we move through life, and we get the gist of people right, because it can be important to our survival. Whether it happened in the back yard or on your Grandmother's sofa is not relevant.
False memories do happen, but they take a lot of work to create. The cases you may have heard of are made with hypnosis, heavy medication, and a bad shrink trying to force their patient to dig up supposedly repressed memories that may not even be there. They don't jive with other memories, and usually can't be made to fit into any reasonable time or space.
Memories that you recover yourself, you can trust. They're not so much repressed, as you just don't think about them. When you are emotionally ready to deal with them, they surface on their own. Or, they don't. It's okay either way.
_____________
At least, this is what I remember her saying...
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Here is why it is important to pay for certain types of personal interactions. Sex*, psychic readings, counseling, and other non-material exchanges.
We never do these things for free, really. When we do these things with friends, it is part of our ongoing exchanges of friendship. It's not tit-for-tat like a commercial exchange, but the recognition of value given and received is there.
When we do these things with strangers, the recognition of value given and received is represented by an exchange of money or other material goods. This closes the interaction, so that nothing else is owed. The provider and the client can go on their separate ways. They may never meet again, and that's okay.
You can
probably guess what brings this up for me today. Someone tried to get a
free reading, using the argument that, "It's a gift you should share
with the world."
No.
If I was a magical healer, then, yes, I would go around doing it "for free", because it would be making the world around me a better place to be in. But, giving that individual a free reading is not going to improve the world around me. Especially since they don't seem to appreciate the value of it, so will probably not heed the advice given anyway. It would be like healing someone's cirrhotic liver so they could keep drinking.
On top of that, I was not at all interested in being their friend.
*meaning one person doing sex for another person. Not a "one night stand" situation where someone does sex in exchange for sex.
No.
If I was a magical healer, then, yes, I would go around doing it "for free", because it would be making the world around me a better place to be in. But, giving that individual a free reading is not going to improve the world around me. Especially since they don't seem to appreciate the value of it, so will probably not heed the advice given anyway. It would be like healing someone's cirrhotic liver so they could keep drinking.
On top of that, I was not at all interested in being their friend.
*meaning one person doing sex for another person. Not a "one night stand" situation where someone does sex in exchange for sex.
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Geez... I keep thinking about this. I don't know if the original post is real or a hoax, but I have heard similar arguments in other places. The line that keeps getting me is "God doesn't need a reason to punish you." That's not a new idea, and goes back at least to the Puritans, and probably farther.
It's another case of not thinking the idea through. If a parent punishes a child without reason, we call it abuse. My father did that do my brother and to me. We left. He died without seeing either of us again.
But, beyond that, is the idea that "You're bad, so you must be punished." This rationale, carried to its logical extreme, led to the Holocaust. The combined idea that people can be instrinsically evil, and that evil must be punished leads inevitably this way.
I'll address punishment first. What is punishment about? What's it for? It is meant to modify behavior. A parent punishes a child for doing something dangerous, because they really don't want the child to do that thing again. A city punishes you with a fine for parking in a no parking zone, because they really don't want you to park there. It's about changing what the person being punished does. Therefore, punishment has a reason, a purpose for the target of the punishment.
Now, intrinsic Evil. "Badness" as a physical trait. I have trouble even picturing it. I can understand bad behavior, maybe even a habit of bad behavior, but "badness" as something inbred? How would someone observe this, how to you measure it? Surely such a creature would never be able to do anything good, even by accident. Would undesirable behavior count as Evil, or just destructive acts? Is playing loud music at 2AM evil, or just rude? Is rudeness "bad", or just annoying? It's a nonsensical concept. And, it is not the basis of the concept of Original Sin. That concept is not that "Man is naturally evil", it is the concept that "Man is flawed, and therefore bound to screw up.". Original Sin is the idea that, no matter how good we are, we will sin from time to time, because we're not perfect. So...no person is just naturally "bad".
But, for the sake of the original problem, let's suppose that it's possible. Here is someone who is just naturally, by the fact of their existence, Evil. Will punishing them change that? If they are innately "bad", can they change their behavior? NO. Punishing a lion for eating meat will not make it a vegetarian, it will just make it a neurotic lion. So, is there any point to punishing someone for their innate sinfulness? No. There would be no reason to think that punishment would change their behavior.
The only reason to do something like that would be an evil reason... creating suffering for selfish personal gratification.* I think we can all agree that doing that is BAD.
*BDSM is a different dynamic, it isn't selfish, for one thing.
It's another case of not thinking the idea through. If a parent punishes a child without reason, we call it abuse. My father did that do my brother and to me. We left. He died without seeing either of us again.
But, beyond that, is the idea that "You're bad, so you must be punished." This rationale, carried to its logical extreme, led to the Holocaust. The combined idea that people can be instrinsically evil, and that evil must be punished leads inevitably this way.
I'll address punishment first. What is punishment about? What's it for? It is meant to modify behavior. A parent punishes a child for doing something dangerous, because they really don't want the child to do that thing again. A city punishes you with a fine for parking in a no parking zone, because they really don't want you to park there. It's about changing what the person being punished does. Therefore, punishment has a reason, a purpose for the target of the punishment.
Now, intrinsic Evil. "Badness" as a physical trait. I have trouble even picturing it. I can understand bad behavior, maybe even a habit of bad behavior, but "badness" as something inbred? How would someone observe this, how to you measure it? Surely such a creature would never be able to do anything good, even by accident. Would undesirable behavior count as Evil, or just destructive acts? Is playing loud music at 2AM evil, or just rude? Is rudeness "bad", or just annoying? It's a nonsensical concept. And, it is not the basis of the concept of Original Sin. That concept is not that "Man is naturally evil", it is the concept that "Man is flawed, and therefore bound to screw up.". Original Sin is the idea that, no matter how good we are, we will sin from time to time, because we're not perfect. So...no person is just naturally "bad".
But, for the sake of the original problem, let's suppose that it's possible. Here is someone who is just naturally, by the fact of their existence, Evil. Will punishing them change that? If they are innately "bad", can they change their behavior? NO. Punishing a lion for eating meat will not make it a vegetarian, it will just make it a neurotic lion. So, is there any point to punishing someone for their innate sinfulness? No. There would be no reason to think that punishment would change their behavior.
The only reason to do something like that would be an evil reason... creating suffering for selfish personal gratification.* I think we can all agree that doing that is BAD.
*BDSM is a different dynamic, it isn't selfish, for one thing.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Someone recently asked me, "Why is it so IMPORTANT to you that people believe in evolution?"
I had to think about it a bit, because it's not really a matter of belief. But, I do have an answer for him.
______________________________
There's a difference between believing something that there is no evidence for, and refusing to accept facts there are plenty of evidence for.
Faith is not the same as deliberate ignorance. The fact of evolution does not preclude a belief in God.
As an example, suppose you believe that the arrangement of the metal rails of a train track are just right to provide positive chi vibrations. So, you might believe that standing between the rails will fill you with these vibrations.
Ok, there's no evidence of that, but there's nothing to contradict it, so I won't argue with you. I will, however caution you to watch for trains while you get your vibes.
If you then respond that you "don't believe in trains" because you believe the rails were placed there by Aliens, I'll have to argue with you.
I will point out that there is plenty of evidence that the rails were laid by Humans. I will tell you about trains that carry freight across the country. I will warn you that there is a train that runs every Tuesday at 10 am. You might come up with complicated arguments about cover ups or conspiracies, but the rather solid evidence of a train will come and smash you flat on Tuesday morning, no matter how much you "don't believe" in it.
This is how you look to me when you tell me you "don't believe" in evolution.
In order to not accept the fact of evolution, you have to ignore biology, physics, chemistry, and many other sciences. It's not just fossils. All the complicated arguments you tell me confirm your disbelief are not only unsupported by evidence, they are contradicted by it.
The complex set of deductions and observations that are known collectively as "evolution" are facts. Not because some authority or ancient text said so, but because they pass the tests Science demands. They are reproducible, predictable and testable.
Maybe you won't get hit by a train for rejecting all this data. But, the habit of not accepting reality can only lead to eventual disaster.
.
I had to think about it a bit, because it's not really a matter of belief. But, I do have an answer for him.
______________________________
There's a difference between believing something that there is no evidence for, and refusing to accept facts there are plenty of evidence for.
Faith is not the same as deliberate ignorance. The fact of evolution does not preclude a belief in God.
As an example, suppose you believe that the arrangement of the metal rails of a train track are just right to provide positive chi vibrations. So, you might believe that standing between the rails will fill you with these vibrations.
Ok, there's no evidence of that, but there's nothing to contradict it, so I won't argue with you. I will, however caution you to watch for trains while you get your vibes.
If you then respond that you "don't believe in trains" because you believe the rails were placed there by Aliens, I'll have to argue with you.
I will point out that there is plenty of evidence that the rails were laid by Humans. I will tell you about trains that carry freight across the country. I will warn you that there is a train that runs every Tuesday at 10 am. You might come up with complicated arguments about cover ups or conspiracies, but the rather solid evidence of a train will come and smash you flat on Tuesday morning, no matter how much you "don't believe" in it.
This is how you look to me when you tell me you "don't believe" in evolution.
In order to not accept the fact of evolution, you have to ignore biology, physics, chemistry, and many other sciences. It's not just fossils. All the complicated arguments you tell me confirm your disbelief are not only unsupported by evidence, they are contradicted by it.
The complex set of deductions and observations that are known collectively as "evolution" are facts. Not because some authority or ancient text said so, but because they pass the tests Science demands. They are reproducible, predictable and testable.
Maybe you won't get hit by a train for rejecting all this data. But, the habit of not accepting reality can only lead to eventual disaster.
.
To a Creationist, or Bible Literalist
I am not an Atheist. I just think God is a helluva lot bigger than you do.
I believe that something that might be called "God" is the author of a universe potentially infinite, and billions of years old.
A universe so amazingly beyond our ability to completely understand that we are still learning new things about our little corner of it.
You think one Book describes Everything? I think that thousands of books just barely start to describe Everything.
I also believe this Godness doesn't care one way or another about Faith or the lack thereof. We are not in a position to harm it in any way.
All that can happen if we retreat into your cramped cave of small faith is that we will make ourselves miserable, and miss out on being part of the grandeur.
.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
.
People get weird about things when genitals get involved. So, here's a scenario with the same emotional factors as rape, but without the sexual content.
Suppose you really like quiche. (you can picture something else if you hate quiche, something you really like)
You eat quiche a lot, and when people offer it to you, you usually take it. You hang out on quiche forums, and have a t-shirt with something about quiche on it.
One day, someone you know offers you quiche. You don't like this person, and don't want to accept a gift from them, even if it is quiche. So, you politely turn them down.
That's when they get scary. They insist, "I want you to eat my quiche."
Maybe your memory isn't too clear on exactly what happens next. You do remember saying again, quite firmly, that you do not want the quiche. Maybe you try to be nice and calm them down, and persuade them to go away. Maybe you fight and are outmatched. Maybe they have a gun, and, as humiliating as it is, you give in rather than get shot.
However it goes, they are able to physically overpower you, overcome your resistance, and make you eat the quiche.
_________________________
Does anyone here think this was anything other than a frightening act of violence?
If this happened to you, and you reported this assault, would you expect to have your own quiche habits questioned?
"How often do you eat quiche?"
"How many people have you accepted quiche from in the past?"
"Isn't it true you accepted quiche from this person before?"
"Did the quiche taste good?"
"After you swallowed the quiche, did you digest it?"
"Why didn't you fight harder?"
"What did you do to make them think you wanted to eat their quiche?"
Would you expect people, including your friends and family, to make comments such as these?
"But, you like quiche, so it couldn't have been that bad an experience."
"Why are you giving this person such a hard time about it? You could ruin their career!"
"You were wearing that quiche t-shirt, what did you expect?"
"If it tasted good, you must have actually wanted it."
"If you hadn't been hanging out at the quiche parlor, this wouldn't have happened."
"It was only quiche."
"God sent this experience to teach you to eat real American food, instead of that French stuff."
The questions and comments are just as nonsensical in a case of rape. Just because the assault, rather than being forced acceptance of food, is forced sexual contact, does not change the dynamic. Rape is no more about sex than the assault I just described is about food.
Exercize #1: Most of you probably read this picturing a male assailant, and female victim. Try the story again, picturing a female assailant, and male victim. Try it with both women, and with both men. How do your opinions and expectations of the two characters change with gender? Do your feelings about the questions and comments change with gender?
Exercize #2: How would your reactions change if the victim had never had quiche before, and only had a vague idea that it was some sort of food?
Exercize #3: In the story, I specified that the reason you don't want the quiche is because you don't like the person offering it. How would things change if the quiche was being offered by someone you DID like, and you turned it down because you really just didn't want quiche at the moment?
.
People get weird about things when genitals get involved. So, here's a scenario with the same emotional factors as rape, but without the sexual content.
Suppose you really like quiche. (you can picture something else if you hate quiche, something you really like)
You eat quiche a lot, and when people offer it to you, you usually take it. You hang out on quiche forums, and have a t-shirt with something about quiche on it.
One day, someone you know offers you quiche. You don't like this person, and don't want to accept a gift from them, even if it is quiche. So, you politely turn them down.
That's when they get scary. They insist, "I want you to eat my quiche."
Maybe your memory isn't too clear on exactly what happens next. You do remember saying again, quite firmly, that you do not want the quiche. Maybe you try to be nice and calm them down, and persuade them to go away. Maybe you fight and are outmatched. Maybe they have a gun, and, as humiliating as it is, you give in rather than get shot.
However it goes, they are able to physically overpower you, overcome your resistance, and make you eat the quiche.
_________________________
Does anyone here think this was anything other than a frightening act of violence?
If this happened to you, and you reported this assault, would you expect to have your own quiche habits questioned?
"How often do you eat quiche?"
"How many people have you accepted quiche from in the past?"
"Isn't it true you accepted quiche from this person before?"
"Did the quiche taste good?"
"After you swallowed the quiche, did you digest it?"
"Why didn't you fight harder?"
"What did you do to make them think you wanted to eat their quiche?"
Would you expect people, including your friends and family, to make comments such as these?
"But, you like quiche, so it couldn't have been that bad an experience."
"Why are you giving this person such a hard time about it? You could ruin their career!"
"You were wearing that quiche t-shirt, what did you expect?"
"If it tasted good, you must have actually wanted it."
"If you hadn't been hanging out at the quiche parlor, this wouldn't have happened."
"It was only quiche."
"God sent this experience to teach you to eat real American food, instead of that French stuff."
The questions and comments are just as nonsensical in a case of rape. Just because the assault, rather than being forced acceptance of food, is forced sexual contact, does not change the dynamic. Rape is no more about sex than the assault I just described is about food.
Exercize #1: Most of you probably read this picturing a male assailant, and female victim. Try the story again, picturing a female assailant, and male victim. Try it with both women, and with both men. How do your opinions and expectations of the two characters change with gender? Do your feelings about the questions and comments change with gender?
Exercize #2: How would your reactions change if the victim had never had quiche before, and only had a vague idea that it was some sort of food?
Exercize #3: In the story, I specified that the reason you don't want the quiche is because you don't like the person offering it. How would things change if the quiche was being offered by someone you DID like, and you turned it down because you really just didn't want quiche at the moment?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
