Sunday, September 22, 2019
A Higher Level, first
I attended a funeral recently -- not my own, thankfully, but I keep thinking that the odds that I will be able to make that statement go down every time I am at a funeral. The rabbi who ran the proceedings and introduced the family members who spoke, mentioned that we were gathered to give "Kavod Acharon" (the Hebrew phrase translating to "final respects") to the deceased. The children and grandchildren spoke of the example that the beloved man set and how they will emulate him and learn from him. It dawned on me that the words of the rabbi were therefore wrong.
I had never really considered it before, but that notion of "kavod acharon" is simply incorrect.
In Judaism, the issue of "kavod" or respect (gravitas, maybe, as the word is related to a word meaning "weighty") is a really important one. The talmud and the commentators provide many examples of how one gives respect, but I think that maybe they missed a little part. Or maybe some famous people figured this all out already and I'm late to the party and ignorant of the classics. Potayto, potahto.
In terms of dealing with our parents, the Torah commands us two things -- Kaved et avicha v'et imecha, respect your father and your mother and Ish imo v'aviv tira'u, a man should fear (be in awe) of his mother and father. Citations available upon googling. Do your own homework. The two verbs are kaved, honor/give respect to, and tira'u, fear or be in awe of. I listened to an explanation of the difference between the two online. Apparently, one major split is that honoring has to do with a passive acceptance and fear is a more proactive set of behaviors. Or something like that. Truth is, it didn't get to what I was looking for so I tuned out.
There is a mitzvah/commandment in Judaism which holds a special place, that of participating in the preparation for and the burial of someone. The recipient cannot say "thank you" so the act shows a respect and care without regard to recompense of any sort. This is part of "kavod hamet" -- respecting/honoring the dead. Honor, it seems, is elevated here when there is no one who benefits who can acknowledge the act. In terms of honor vs. fear, it seems to me that fear is about the concern for consequence. I don't want to disappoint, annoy or otherwise fun afoul of my parents, so I fear them and show reverence. But honor is silent and unknown. It is not about what happens afterwards; it is only about how we are supposed to be because that's just how we are supposed to be.
In that sense, when we see that a loved one has passed, and we resolve to emulate that person and incorporate important lessons into our future daily life, even though we know that the deceased can't comment on or provide feedback for our actions, we are intending to live a life dedicated to a continual kavod, honor and respect for that loved one! In fact, then, our presence at the funeral, and our continued existence, keeping in mind the wishes, life and lessons of the one who has passed, is not a Kavod Acharon, (final respect) but the Kavod Rishon, the first respect! Now that the person has passed, that person cannot see what we do, so our actions, being performed with no "thank you" are now a higher level of respect -- we do them because they are the right thing to do, not because we are concerned with the repercussions. Kavod doesn't end. It actually starts at this moment.
The term Kavod Acharon is a few hundred years old. It does capture one aspect of how we relate to the passing of a loved one, but it misses a whole other dimension that I believe we need to focus on. Let us concentrate on respecting the loved one who passed on every day, at every moment and making the funeral an opportunity to begin a new chapter of respect and honor instead of seeing it as a closing, a last respect.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Post Titles
Today, I started writing book titles. I don't really have any books to write, but I was possessed of a drive to compose titles for books that should be written. I have no particular idea of what these books are about, but I like the titles. So do with them what you will.
Screeching Howler Monkeys with Airhorns: The Silent Killers
Margarine Whence?
Mouse, Ahoy
Hip on Pip
Thoughts While Thinking
Should You Buy Your Radio a TV?
Top 10 Scenic Vacation Spots in your House
Poems to go Blind By
Runty, the Smelliest Badger
Drapes, Drapes, Drapes!
If I kick off...
I have been reluctant to write this because I'm afraid of the controversy it would cause, and the potential backlash from the powers that be, but I find myself at the point of the evening where, if I don't procrastinate, I might end up doing some work. So so be it. That being said, I am ready to blow the lid off of this whole thing.
I think, no, I dare say, I believe, or even, I believe I think, that the entire of the NFL is one big put on.
There, I said it.
A put on. It isn't real. it is to soccer what television wrestling is to the Olympic wrestling. It is a mock up of a sham, foisted on the unknowing masses and ignorant slobs who refuse to suspect that this can't be true, and who let blind acceptance rule them for 5 months out of the year. Games are scripted and fairly well rehearsed and American and the world are allowed to root for the good guys, buy the bad boys and get that vicarious catharsis that all good, mindless entertainment provides. Some explosions, some violence, a couple of beer commercials, and I'm good to go.
All fake. All Hollywood. Florida, maybe, but Hollywood nonetheless.
You are probably wondering about my evidence and don't you worry yourself any -- I've got that in spades. Its started when I was a boy, watching the gladiators of Sunday afternoon play. First, I noticed that when the going got tough, strategic players got "hurt" and had to leave the game. Ships abandoning the sinking ship to avoid future injury. They all came back next week, rested and healed. I notice that football players can recover from injury a lot faster than humans. Last week, I saw a quarterback have his ankle turned in a direction which I couldn't find in a 3-D space. I was convinced that MY ankle got snapped. Stunned silence -- I stared at the screen, wincing as I watched repeated replays through slightly splayed fingers. Cut to commercial. Return in 2 minutes and he has miraculously walked off the field. Not possible. I know what I saw. The man had no functional ankle left. Don't tell me that he walked off on his own. There isn't that much adrenaline in a bull elephant. Or an elephant bull. No sir.
I was watching a game and I noticed a few other things -- first is the easy one: calls made by referees that seem capricious and illogical. A penalty here, a judgement call there. Each team has felt the sting at some point or another. Even the announcers occasionally fail to understand. How could that have NOT been flagged? How could they whistle that dead? I saw a fumble recovery for a touchdown called back, but not because it wasn't a fumble. It was called back because, well, just because. The script, it seems, didn't have a touchdown set for that moment. Back to position A, kids. Let's film the big dance scene next.
Next up, replays. You watch the play and it moves unnaturally quickly. A violent ballet of 22 men in tights who swivel, pivot and good naturedly throw each other to the ground and threaten each others' families. The play ends and somehow, in the span of 2 seconds, some color commentator guy (a naming vestige of a cruder time...we should work on that) accurately names the 3 players who moved in some strangely synchronized set of movements to allow the play to develop, and the camera just happened to have exactly that vantage point diagrammed and cued up. Nuh uh. No way he could have seen that, identified the players, gotten the precise moment ready for a replay and a perfectly suited explanation timed to the second. I have seen referees struggle to identify a player and they are RIGHT THERE. You can't tell me that some guy in a booth can track all 22 players and identify, with no notice, which combination of hulking, falling figures, did the one thing which allowed a guy to rumble through a mass of bodies. It can't be done. They must know the plays in advance, and have the cameras all ready to track where the ball WILL be.
And another thing -- when I watch the game, no matter where I am (so no matter what the local game is) they all seem to cut to the exact same halftime show at precisely the right moment. If that halftime show (5 guys exchanging witty banter, never stepping on each others' lines or toes, with exactly the right amount to say about each game to get you back to the action right at kick off? Not a chance that that isn't pre-recorded) is the same one people from all markets watch, then how can they all finish the first half at exactly the same time? At the end of the game, when coverage shifts to the ending of another game, the announcers say "we welcome those of you who were watching X". But at halftime, there is no welcoming staggered audiences. So I vote "fake."
More about half time. This past weekend, before they threw the coverage to their canned "recap" for half time, the two actors pretending to watch a football game chatted about the game. This was, and I'm not making this up, at the half time of a fairly large game. Here is the picture:
Tell me if you notice anything. Remember -- this is during the game. I notice a whole heckuvalot of empty seats, even though the stadium was full for the game. Do 90% of the people go to the bathroom at the same time? Clearly, this is a little Capricorn One action. The discussion was recorded well before people got there and the game was played. Just all lies and we, the sheep, eat it all up.
Look, I know that there are plenty of good conspiracy theories out there, and I even believe a couple of them, But this one is mine. Sure, I think I could take this further and posit that the entire of existence is a Truman Show-esque joke played on me, but for now, I will simply risk life and limb by exposing the NFL cover-up. So if anything happens to me, blame pro football. The truth must be spoken aloud, people!
----------------
MAJOR EDIT!
It is a few weeks later (Oct 6) and I was just watching a game between Pittsburgh and Baltimore. Overtime. A ball was dropped and took an odd bounce. The commentator guy made a statement which repeated 3 times and quickly cut off, as if an audio file has looped! PRE-RECORDED! MORE PROOF that the whole thing is a major scam. Watch the video -- other than replaying it off of my DVR which automatically records things, I have done NO editing to this. Listen to the audio and tell me that this doesn't prove that the whole thing is a put on!
Note -- I can't insert a playable video file so I'm putting a link to the file on my google drive.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zrD-PJgWWQVDX53DP_44ybMBNwgyihZN/view?usp=sharing
and on Youtube
https://youtu.be/Fwaj5R379iI
the article -- 3 hours ago, or approx 6:45 PM for a game that started at 8:30.
Somehow, they knew that, almost 2 hours before the game started, the Cowboys would lead. FAKERS!
I think, no, I dare say, I believe, or even, I believe I think, that the entire of the NFL is one big put on.
There, I said it.
A put on. It isn't real. it is to soccer what television wrestling is to the Olympic wrestling. It is a mock up of a sham, foisted on the unknowing masses and ignorant slobs who refuse to suspect that this can't be true, and who let blind acceptance rule them for 5 months out of the year. Games are scripted and fairly well rehearsed and American and the world are allowed to root for the good guys, buy the bad boys and get that vicarious catharsis that all good, mindless entertainment provides. Some explosions, some violence, a couple of beer commercials, and I'm good to go.
All fake. All Hollywood. Florida, maybe, but Hollywood nonetheless.
You are probably wondering about my evidence and don't you worry yourself any -- I've got that in spades. Its started when I was a boy, watching the gladiators of Sunday afternoon play. First, I noticed that when the going got tough, strategic players got "hurt" and had to leave the game. Ships abandoning the sinking ship to avoid future injury. They all came back next week, rested and healed. I notice that football players can recover from injury a lot faster than humans. Last week, I saw a quarterback have his ankle turned in a direction which I couldn't find in a 3-D space. I was convinced that MY ankle got snapped. Stunned silence -- I stared at the screen, wincing as I watched repeated replays through slightly splayed fingers. Cut to commercial. Return in 2 minutes and he has miraculously walked off the field. Not possible. I know what I saw. The man had no functional ankle left. Don't tell me that he walked off on his own. There isn't that much adrenaline in a bull elephant. Or an elephant bull. No sir.
I was watching a game and I noticed a few other things -- first is the easy one: calls made by referees that seem capricious and illogical. A penalty here, a judgement call there. Each team has felt the sting at some point or another. Even the announcers occasionally fail to understand. How could that have NOT been flagged? How could they whistle that dead? I saw a fumble recovery for a touchdown called back, but not because it wasn't a fumble. It was called back because, well, just because. The script, it seems, didn't have a touchdown set for that moment. Back to position A, kids. Let's film the big dance scene next.
Next up, replays. You watch the play and it moves unnaturally quickly. A violent ballet of 22 men in tights who swivel, pivot and good naturedly throw each other to the ground and threaten each others' families. The play ends and somehow, in the span of 2 seconds, some color commentator guy (a naming vestige of a cruder time...we should work on that) accurately names the 3 players who moved in some strangely synchronized set of movements to allow the play to develop, and the camera just happened to have exactly that vantage point diagrammed and cued up. Nuh uh. No way he could have seen that, identified the players, gotten the precise moment ready for a replay and a perfectly suited explanation timed to the second. I have seen referees struggle to identify a player and they are RIGHT THERE. You can't tell me that some guy in a booth can track all 22 players and identify, with no notice, which combination of hulking, falling figures, did the one thing which allowed a guy to rumble through a mass of bodies. It can't be done. They must know the plays in advance, and have the cameras all ready to track where the ball WILL be.
And another thing -- when I watch the game, no matter where I am (so no matter what the local game is) they all seem to cut to the exact same halftime show at precisely the right moment. If that halftime show (5 guys exchanging witty banter, never stepping on each others' lines or toes, with exactly the right amount to say about each game to get you back to the action right at kick off? Not a chance that that isn't pre-recorded) is the same one people from all markets watch, then how can they all finish the first half at exactly the same time? At the end of the game, when coverage shifts to the ending of another game, the announcers say "we welcome those of you who were watching X". But at halftime, there is no welcoming staggered audiences. So I vote "fake."
More about half time. This past weekend, before they threw the coverage to their canned "recap" for half time, the two actors pretending to watch a football game chatted about the game. This was, and I'm not making this up, at the half time of a fairly large game. Here is the picture:
Tell me if you notice anything. Remember -- this is during the game. I notice a whole heckuvalot of empty seats, even though the stadium was full for the game. Do 90% of the people go to the bathroom at the same time? Clearly, this is a little Capricorn One action. The discussion was recorded well before people got there and the game was played. Just all lies and we, the sheep, eat it all up.
Look, I know that there are plenty of good conspiracy theories out there, and I even believe a couple of them, But this one is mine. Sure, I think I could take this further and posit that the entire of existence is a Truman Show-esque joke played on me, but for now, I will simply risk life and limb by exposing the NFL cover-up. So if anything happens to me, blame pro football. The truth must be spoken aloud, people!
----------------
MAJOR EDIT!
It is a few weeks later (Oct 6) and I was just watching a game between Pittsburgh and Baltimore. Overtime. A ball was dropped and took an odd bounce. The commentator guy made a statement which repeated 3 times and quickly cut off, as if an audio file has looped! PRE-RECORDED! MORE PROOF that the whole thing is a major scam. Watch the video -- other than replaying it off of my DVR which automatically records things, I have done NO editing to this. Listen to the audio and tell me that this doesn't prove that the whole thing is a put on!
Note -- I can't insert a playable video file so I'm putting a link to the file on my google drive.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zrD-PJgWWQVDX53DP_44ybMBNwgyihZN/view?usp=sharing
and on Youtube
https://youtu.be/Fwaj5R379iI
---------------
Next edit!!
Dec 4, 2022. I am watching the Dallas vs. Colts game on SNF and I also looked at the news and saw this (the game started at 8:30 ish and it is now almost half-time, 9:48):
https://imgur.com/a/nUkTOXF
Note the time on the bottom right corner, 9:46. Note the time on the byline for
the article -- 3 hours ago, or approx 6:45 PM for a game that started at 8:30.
Somehow, they knew that, almost 2 hours before the game started, the Cowboys would lead. FAKERS!
Friday, September 13, 2019
Riposte
I know I come up with some fanciful thoughts -- I twist words and interpret text in a way which others might think of as liberal (in terms of meaning, not application). A bunch of years ago, I presented (here? on Facebook? in a file on some computer somewhere? I don't recall) a somewhat strange reading. It went a little like this.
At a certain point in the chumash, Ya'akov avinu says (Bereishit 37:35) כִּֽי־אֵרֵ֧ד אֶל־בְּנִ֛י אָבֵ֖ל שְׁאֹ֑לָה (ki ered el b'ni aveil she'ola) " I will go down mourning to my son in Sheol" (translation from Sefaria). That word, Sheol has been discussed well, to death. Rashi says that it means "the grace" and refers to "Gehenom" (a word/reference with its own interesting etymology). The Ibn Ezra vociferously disagrees and says it simply means "down". I'll let them fight it out. I have other ideas.
Judaism is a question which thrives on intellectual curiosity. Our sages agrued over finer points, challenged each other and (as shown above) disagreed across years and miles. We are driven to ask questions and investigate the answers and not give up. In the talmud, sometimes the answer is illogical but based in fath and sometimes, it is "teiku" (we don't know yet but will in the future) but that's an answer. So what is this "grave" word? She'ola, which has the same letters as she'eilah, a question. It seems that the suffering of death hinges on the torture of an unanswered question. What could be more excruciating than being possessed of questions and problems and having no way of even investigating towards any sort of answer. This is true next-world suffering in my humble opinion.
That's what I came up with years ago. Not so bad, I think.
But that's not what inspired me today. Today, if you aren't keeping score at home, is the 13th of Elul. As such, we are in the midst of preparations for the high holiday season and we are encouraged to explore paths towards repentance. Repentance. An English word that seems to indicate that I pentanced already and it is time to do so again. "Repent" is an ancient word that comes from the Latin penitire (to regret, which requires multiple grets, I guess) plus the intensive re- prefix. To really regret. In Hebrew, though, we don't use a word that has to do with regret -- we say "t'shuva".
T'shuva has to do with going back, returning. In a sense, this overlaps with regret as it indicates a change in thoughts. My mind goes back to the event. I wish I could have the moment back so I could act differently. I have changed my way of thinking about the propriety (or lack thereof) of my actions. There is a lot of "going back" and "returning" for sure. But that's not what the word REALLY means. And I know, because I made up a new meaning.
Teachers use the word t'shuva often, though, generally when speaking or teaching Hebrew. Use it in a French class in a public school in Iowa and it won't really have the same punch. The word is a regular old noun meaning "answer." The meaning develops from the idea of "response" or a rejoinder. A word or message is sent back, returning to the one who asked a question. So why is this the word we use for repentance (or vice versa)?
Maybe, just maybe, I can stitch these two concepts of questions and answers together. Could it be that we, at this time of year, start thinking about the implications and consequences of our behavior on our soul and see that bad behavior will lead us to She'ol, to a state of questions with no answers. So what do we do? We immerse ourselves in the process of answering. We study (I don't understand the laws and have questions), we read (I have questions of faith -- let me see what great thinkers have said) and we come up with solutions to our questions (why did I do that? How can I change?) We realize that there is an ultimate answer and it isn't 42. As in the talmud, sometimes it is an answer of "have faith in God" even if that means "I can't tell you now, but trust me, there is an answer and you will get it in the future." Our soul is then reassured -- the future is not about unanswered questions, but about answers to the things we can't wrap our brains about now. T'shuva saves us from She'ol. Answers will make sure we are not left with only questions.
Let this be a year of understanding -- ourselves and others. Let this be a year in which we find answers, or move towards them, and a year in which our questions drive us towards understanding, not leaving us adrift. Let us return in all ways, to the faith that everything will be answered in the future. Let us do t'shuva.
At a certain point in the chumash, Ya'akov avinu says (Bereishit 37:35) כִּֽי־אֵרֵ֧ד אֶל־בְּנִ֛י אָבֵ֖ל שְׁאֹ֑לָה (ki ered el b'ni aveil she'ola) " I will go down mourning to my son in Sheol" (translation from Sefaria). That word, Sheol has been discussed well, to death. Rashi says that it means "the grace" and refers to "Gehenom" (a word/reference with its own interesting etymology). The Ibn Ezra vociferously disagrees and says it simply means "down". I'll let them fight it out. I have other ideas.
Judaism is a question which thrives on intellectual curiosity. Our sages agrued over finer points, challenged each other and (as shown above) disagreed across years and miles. We are driven to ask questions and investigate the answers and not give up. In the talmud, sometimes the answer is illogical but based in fath and sometimes, it is "teiku" (we don't know yet but will in the future) but that's an answer. So what is this "grave" word? She'ola, which has the same letters as she'eilah, a question. It seems that the suffering of death hinges on the torture of an unanswered question. What could be more excruciating than being possessed of questions and problems and having no way of even investigating towards any sort of answer. This is true next-world suffering in my humble opinion.
That's what I came up with years ago. Not so bad, I think.
But that's not what inspired me today. Today, if you aren't keeping score at home, is the 13th of Elul. As such, we are in the midst of preparations for the high holiday season and we are encouraged to explore paths towards repentance. Repentance. An English word that seems to indicate that I pentanced already and it is time to do so again. "Repent" is an ancient word that comes from the Latin penitire (to regret, which requires multiple grets, I guess) plus the intensive re- prefix. To really regret. In Hebrew, though, we don't use a word that has to do with regret -- we say "t'shuva".
T'shuva has to do with going back, returning. In a sense, this overlaps with regret as it indicates a change in thoughts. My mind goes back to the event. I wish I could have the moment back so I could act differently. I have changed my way of thinking about the propriety (or lack thereof) of my actions. There is a lot of "going back" and "returning" for sure. But that's not what the word REALLY means. And I know, because I made up a new meaning.
Teachers use the word t'shuva often, though, generally when speaking or teaching Hebrew. Use it in a French class in a public school in Iowa and it won't really have the same punch. The word is a regular old noun meaning "answer." The meaning develops from the idea of "response" or a rejoinder. A word or message is sent back, returning to the one who asked a question. So why is this the word we use for repentance (or vice versa)?
Maybe, just maybe, I can stitch these two concepts of questions and answers together. Could it be that we, at this time of year, start thinking about the implications and consequences of our behavior on our soul and see that bad behavior will lead us to She'ol, to a state of questions with no answers. So what do we do? We immerse ourselves in the process of answering. We study (I don't understand the laws and have questions), we read (I have questions of faith -- let me see what great thinkers have said) and we come up with solutions to our questions (why did I do that? How can I change?) We realize that there is an ultimate answer and it isn't 42. As in the talmud, sometimes it is an answer of "have faith in God" even if that means "I can't tell you now, but trust me, there is an answer and you will get it in the future." Our soul is then reassured -- the future is not about unanswered questions, but about answers to the things we can't wrap our brains about now. T'shuva saves us from She'ol. Answers will make sure we are not left with only questions.
Let this be a year of understanding -- ourselves and others. Let this be a year in which we find answers, or move towards them, and a year in which our questions drive us towards understanding, not leaving us adrift. Let us return in all ways, to the faith that everything will be answered in the future. Let us do t'shuva.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
A weighty subject
I have been thinking about losing weight. I don't mean that I have been only thinking about it because I don't intend to do it, though that is a reasonable conclusion to draw. I really have been spending brian cells considering it as a concept. Crazy, right? Beats exercise.
But anyway, here's my thinking, and I say this as someone who has been on a weight affective diet for 20 or so years. It doesn't work. Now, hold on there sport. I don't mean what I say. Exactly. I mean, sure it works, but only that it doesn't. i hope that that clears everything up.
I'm on a low-carb kind of diet. I eat green veggies (occasionally) and eat proteins and fats. Like fried cows with no breading, or grilled cheese, minus the sandwich. I started this Atkins-esque approach because I was somewhat "overweight" and wanted an approach that didn't require that I measure anything, or exercise, and that allowed me to eat animals and such. I found that if I stuck to entire chickens or a block of cheese, the pounds melted off. I dropped weight, and as long as I limited my intake of such bad things as fruit and vegetables, I was fine, if not depressed. I also found that my cholesterol rose but only in the good way -- my ratio is fantastic so while my overall number looks high, it is only so because I am doubling up on the good stuff. Here's to you, steak!
Ofr course with great weight loss comes great irresponsibility so I find myself subject to cravings sometimes. And I cave. I cave like a collapsing cave would cave were it not for a well-built set of supports keeping the cave from caving in. I eat what I want and the self-loathing kicks-in in 5...4...3...always. After these momentary setbacks which last from an hour to 2 weeks, I balloon back to my former size (when I am twice the many I used to be) and I punish myself by avoiding sugars and increasing my intake of cream cheese wrapped in edam. And vice versa.
And repeat.
Now, today (while I was eating my brussels sprouts and cheating with some sweet potato fries), I was listening to a conversation that the local vegan was having with another teacher about what he ate. He is on a strict raw foods kind of thing. I also listened to the people who avoid gluten like the plaque. What I realized is "they still exist."
My understanding was that if I were to continue on my diet, I would continue to lose weight. Therefore, people should eventually disappear, having lost all the weight that constitutes their being. Makes sense, right? Prove me wrong.
Well, you say, in a vain attempt to to unpack the inescapable logic I have presented, that's not how it works. Like you know. The body, you insist, can be reduced to a certain amount around its desired and best point -- a frame will always have a stasis, a size which is optimal for that body.
Fine, I say, having drawn you in to my whirlpool of brilliance, then why do we assume that the optimal weight exists on some chart or is the knowledge-province of experts who aren't even in my body? Huh? No answer. Maybe my body WANTS to be 10 pounds heavier than some expert insists is right for me! Maybe I keep bouncing back (in a jolly fashion, I might add) to a higher weight because I'm supposed to be at that weight and the lower fringes of the range I have occupied, if they can only be maintained by serious deprivation and concommitant sadness, must be perversions of who I am and am meant to be. There are plenty of people who "eat right" and even (dare I say it) exercise, but they don't lose weight. Their body has exerted control over the body. The die has been cast, and cast in XL pants.
So diet doesn't work because it is a distortion of the true nature of things. Yes, a particular set or volume of foods can get me back to my optimal weight after I have intentionally packed on the pounds, but moderation will take me back to that optimal place where, health experts be damned, I need to be. No apologies.
But anyway, here's my thinking, and I say this as someone who has been on a weight affective diet for 20 or so years. It doesn't work. Now, hold on there sport. I don't mean what I say. Exactly. I mean, sure it works, but only that it doesn't. i hope that that clears everything up.
I'm on a low-carb kind of diet. I eat green veggies (occasionally) and eat proteins and fats. Like fried cows with no breading, or grilled cheese, minus the sandwich. I started this Atkins-esque approach because I was somewhat "overweight" and wanted an approach that didn't require that I measure anything, or exercise, and that allowed me to eat animals and such. I found that if I stuck to entire chickens or a block of cheese, the pounds melted off. I dropped weight, and as long as I limited my intake of such bad things as fruit and vegetables, I was fine, if not depressed. I also found that my cholesterol rose but only in the good way -- my ratio is fantastic so while my overall number looks high, it is only so because I am doubling up on the good stuff. Here's to you, steak!
Ofr course with great weight loss comes great irresponsibility so I find myself subject to cravings sometimes. And I cave. I cave like a collapsing cave would cave were it not for a well-built set of supports keeping the cave from caving in. I eat what I want and the self-loathing kicks-in in 5...4...3...always. After these momentary setbacks which last from an hour to 2 weeks, I balloon back to my former size (when I am twice the many I used to be) and I punish myself by avoiding sugars and increasing my intake of cream cheese wrapped in edam. And vice versa.
And repeat.
Now, today (while I was eating my brussels sprouts and cheating with some sweet potato fries), I was listening to a conversation that the local vegan was having with another teacher about what he ate. He is on a strict raw foods kind of thing. I also listened to the people who avoid gluten like the plaque. What I realized is "they still exist."
My understanding was that if I were to continue on my diet, I would continue to lose weight. Therefore, people should eventually disappear, having lost all the weight that constitutes their being. Makes sense, right? Prove me wrong.
Well, you say, in a vain attempt to to unpack the inescapable logic I have presented, that's not how it works. Like you know. The body, you insist, can be reduced to a certain amount around its desired and best point -- a frame will always have a stasis, a size which is optimal for that body.
Fine, I say, having drawn you in to my whirlpool of brilliance, then why do we assume that the optimal weight exists on some chart or is the knowledge-province of experts who aren't even in my body? Huh? No answer. Maybe my body WANTS to be 10 pounds heavier than some expert insists is right for me! Maybe I keep bouncing back (in a jolly fashion, I might add) to a higher weight because I'm supposed to be at that weight and the lower fringes of the range I have occupied, if they can only be maintained by serious deprivation and concommitant sadness, must be perversions of who I am and am meant to be. There are plenty of people who "eat right" and even (dare I say it) exercise, but they don't lose weight. Their body has exerted control over the body. The die has been cast, and cast in XL pants.
So diet doesn't work because it is a distortion of the true nature of things. Yes, a particular set or volume of foods can get me back to my optimal weight after I have intentionally packed on the pounds, but moderation will take me back to that optimal place where, health experts be damned, I need to be. No apologies.
Monday, September 2, 2019
Just thinking out loud about teaching
There are 2 kinds of teaching -- modeling and instruction.
For little kids, modeling, the performance of behaviors, actions and tasks to establish the proper order and method for an audience, is important, especially if the person doing the modeling is admired. We can call this direct imitation learning. If I have my kids watch me do the laundry (and if I narrate the steps), they will learn the steps I take and, with enough exposure, learn to repeat those steps and do the laundry. They will not be conditioned to ask questions or know why they do what they do, but for certain behaviors, performance is key and understanding is secondary, at least initially. Creating a foundation of behavior and skills is necessary so when questions are asked, they will be within a context.
Problems -- if the modeler is NOT admired, the modeling might lead to direct counter imitation, the doing of the opposite as a rejection of the person, not the practice. And if the youngster does have questions that are not answered, or cannot be, or is confronted with a different set of parameters for which there is no model, the practice might fall apart. Internal motivation, at a young enough age and with the right modeler can overcome many problems, but if the success is predicated on this then a loss of motivation causes a cascading failure of the approach.
Instruction, the passing along of information, data, experience or skills, whatever the modality is useful when the brain has matured enough to acquire, file away and retain information and, one hopes, make connections with other information. Questions, properly motivated, can flesh out instruction and help the individual assess, analyze, synthesize and innovate new ideas. In a way, modeling addresses lower order thinking skills and instruction triggers higher order thinking skills. This, of course, is not absolute -- there is plenty of cross over and other variables to consider.
The problems with instruction are many -- the content has to be accepted as valuable and requires the buy in of the student. At the age when instruction is most effective and useful, students are most distracted and have developed the ability to avoid instruction. Multiple modalities (and stealth instruction) have tried to sidestep resistance in cases of reluctant learners. Also, disabilities which might not surface when modeling is the approach will often show up in instructional settings.
Proper pedagogy successfully combines the two approaches at varying percentages depending on the age, experience, motivation (and other elements) of the student. Modeling can never stop, but it can't be employed exclusively. Instruction in one form or another is both the backdrop and the context of understanding but it can't replace sensory input with intellectual assimilation.
For little kids, modeling, the performance of behaviors, actions and tasks to establish the proper order and method for an audience, is important, especially if the person doing the modeling is admired. We can call this direct imitation learning. If I have my kids watch me do the laundry (and if I narrate the steps), they will learn the steps I take and, with enough exposure, learn to repeat those steps and do the laundry. They will not be conditioned to ask questions or know why they do what they do, but for certain behaviors, performance is key and understanding is secondary, at least initially. Creating a foundation of behavior and skills is necessary so when questions are asked, they will be within a context.
Problems -- if the modeler is NOT admired, the modeling might lead to direct counter imitation, the doing of the opposite as a rejection of the person, not the practice. And if the youngster does have questions that are not answered, or cannot be, or is confronted with a different set of parameters for which there is no model, the practice might fall apart. Internal motivation, at a young enough age and with the right modeler can overcome many problems, but if the success is predicated on this then a loss of motivation causes a cascading failure of the approach.
Instruction, the passing along of information, data, experience or skills, whatever the modality is useful when the brain has matured enough to acquire, file away and retain information and, one hopes, make connections with other information. Questions, properly motivated, can flesh out instruction and help the individual assess, analyze, synthesize and innovate new ideas. In a way, modeling addresses lower order thinking skills and instruction triggers higher order thinking skills. This, of course, is not absolute -- there is plenty of cross over and other variables to consider.
The problems with instruction are many -- the content has to be accepted as valuable and requires the buy in of the student. At the age when instruction is most effective and useful, students are most distracted and have developed the ability to avoid instruction. Multiple modalities (and stealth instruction) have tried to sidestep resistance in cases of reluctant learners. Also, disabilities which might not surface when modeling is the approach will often show up in instructional settings.
Proper pedagogy successfully combines the two approaches at varying percentages depending on the age, experience, motivation (and other elements) of the student. Modeling can never stop, but it can't be employed exclusively. Instruction in one form or another is both the backdrop and the context of understanding but it can't replace sensory input with intellectual assimilation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)