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.
Friday, September 13, 2019
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.
Sunday, August 25, 2019
Goals and Roles of Education
The school year is approaching so I need to get my head back into the teacher space. If you are in the field of education, then this post might be interesting. If you are not, then you are defining "the field of education" too narrowly and you should read this whether or not it is interesting. Either way, I win, and that's what is important here.
One of my many neuroses is a need to organize ideas into groupings. I also like to be places early and I finish any book I start even if it is horrible. But the main thing is I break ideas down into categories. For some things, this is a well known practice. People often talk about the reasons for the use of jails (in no particular order):
1. Punishment -- you do the crime, you lose the privilege of living with others, or voting, or whatever
2. Deterrence -- others want to avoid this penalty
3. Rehabilitation -- learn to be a better person while in jail
4. Removal -- we have to protect others by removing you
There might be more but you get my point. We can decide if the system "works" only by measuring the end result against the expectations created by our initial goal. If someone isn't rehabilitated but we are safer while he is in jail, then if our goal was #4, then success. If it was #3, then failure.
When it comes to education (as I and others have said) there are also many possible goals. The easiest way to break them down might be
1. To be
2. To do
3. To know
and each of those can be attached to a particular approach to curricular design and instruction: rules-based (civics, how can the student be a more involved member of the society), skills-based (vocational, the goal of teaching is to make sure the student can apply actual skills), classics-based (academia for academia's sake; amassing knowledge is the primary goal of education). Proponents of each can also defend their positions by saying that each one creates the gateway to the others. If I am a more involved person, I can gain skills through being social, and gain knowledge by respecting the canon out there. If I am well-read, then skills can be more easily acquired and I will contribute to society that way. If I have the ability to do something, I will become invested in the world and will want to learn more about it as I succeed. Or something like that.
Now, I know that all three of these approaches are valid and necessary, but when too much stress is put on any one of them, the educational system becomes stilted. For too long, most schools were about knowledge, expecting other things to come out of that. Students who couldn't hack it (in the old way of thinking) were consigned to vocational structured education. And certain more parochial approaches focused on the being and the self. In response, schools have tried to switch things up with more schools including vocational training for all students or using projects to have students apply knowledge and implement it as a skill, or even downplay the knowledge acquisition. Some schools have introduced character building as an essential element of curriculum. Now, this isn't inherently bad because, as with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. A good school has to incorporate all of these aspects, trusting the classroom instructor's sense of when each needs to be primary. Unfortunately, we are letting the pendulum swing too freely, and shifting so completely from one exclusive mix to the other extreme that we aren't really solving the underlying need, for an holistic view of student development, needing all these goals all the time. In the same way that we can't focus only on higher order thinking skills and forget about the foundational nature of the lower order ones, we can't ignore the need for frontal teaching when we flip the classroom. Good teaching is student centered even as it keeps the teacher driving content, pace and approach. Good teaching gives students freedom but guides them towards what the expert knows will be most beneficial to them in the long run. You can't just "know" without knowing why. You can't learn to do without understanding when not to do. There is no "being" which isn't grounded in understanding. Nature isn't the only one who abhors a vacuum -- it doesn't work in education either. But it takes a practiced hand to know when each aspect of an educational goal needs stress.
So a student is graduated from the system. Did the system succeed or fail with that student? What was the goal? Does he know more than when he started? Does he care to learn more on his own because he values learning? Can he do any of that learning on his own, or can he apply what he has learned to other contexts? And this measure of success might change student by student (and even for a single student it might shift over time). Looking at short term measures (local summative assessments, external high-stakes testing, admission to the next step of the educational ladder) is a fool's way of deciding if things worked and we know this, but we hang our hats on these metrics anyway.
I don't have the answers -- that's why you are reading this for free on a blog. But I do know that the first step is asking the right questions and clarifying terms and goals so that we can free oursleves up to brainstorming some solutions.
One of my many neuroses is a need to organize ideas into groupings. I also like to be places early and I finish any book I start even if it is horrible. But the main thing is I break ideas down into categories. For some things, this is a well known practice. People often talk about the reasons for the use of jails (in no particular order):
1. Punishment -- you do the crime, you lose the privilege of living with others, or voting, or whatever
2. Deterrence -- others want to avoid this penalty
3. Rehabilitation -- learn to be a better person while in jail
4. Removal -- we have to protect others by removing you
There might be more but you get my point. We can decide if the system "works" only by measuring the end result against the expectations created by our initial goal. If someone isn't rehabilitated but we are safer while he is in jail, then if our goal was #4, then success. If it was #3, then failure.
When it comes to education (as I and others have said) there are also many possible goals. The easiest way to break them down might be
1. To be
2. To do
3. To know
and each of those can be attached to a particular approach to curricular design and instruction: rules-based (civics, how can the student be a more involved member of the society), skills-based (vocational, the goal of teaching is to make sure the student can apply actual skills), classics-based (academia for academia's sake; amassing knowledge is the primary goal of education). Proponents of each can also defend their positions by saying that each one creates the gateway to the others. If I am a more involved person, I can gain skills through being social, and gain knowledge by respecting the canon out there. If I am well-read, then skills can be more easily acquired and I will contribute to society that way. If I have the ability to do something, I will become invested in the world and will want to learn more about it as I succeed. Or something like that.
Now, I know that all three of these approaches are valid and necessary, but when too much stress is put on any one of them, the educational system becomes stilted. For too long, most schools were about knowledge, expecting other things to come out of that. Students who couldn't hack it (in the old way of thinking) were consigned to vocational structured education. And certain more parochial approaches focused on the being and the self. In response, schools have tried to switch things up with more schools including vocational training for all students or using projects to have students apply knowledge and implement it as a skill, or even downplay the knowledge acquisition. Some schools have introduced character building as an essential element of curriculum. Now, this isn't inherently bad because, as with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. A good school has to incorporate all of these aspects, trusting the classroom instructor's sense of when each needs to be primary. Unfortunately, we are letting the pendulum swing too freely, and shifting so completely from one exclusive mix to the other extreme that we aren't really solving the underlying need, for an holistic view of student development, needing all these goals all the time. In the same way that we can't focus only on higher order thinking skills and forget about the foundational nature of the lower order ones, we can't ignore the need for frontal teaching when we flip the classroom. Good teaching is student centered even as it keeps the teacher driving content, pace and approach. Good teaching gives students freedom but guides them towards what the expert knows will be most beneficial to them in the long run. You can't just "know" without knowing why. You can't learn to do without understanding when not to do. There is no "being" which isn't grounded in understanding. Nature isn't the only one who abhors a vacuum -- it doesn't work in education either. But it takes a practiced hand to know when each aspect of an educational goal needs stress.
So a student is graduated from the system. Did the system succeed or fail with that student? What was the goal? Does he know more than when he started? Does he care to learn more on his own because he values learning? Can he do any of that learning on his own, or can he apply what he has learned to other contexts? And this measure of success might change student by student (and even for a single student it might shift over time). Looking at short term measures (local summative assessments, external high-stakes testing, admission to the next step of the educational ladder) is a fool's way of deciding if things worked and we know this, but we hang our hats on these metrics anyway.
I don't have the answers -- that's why you are reading this for free on a blog. But I do know that the first step is asking the right questions and clarifying terms and goals so that we can free oursleves up to brainstorming some solutions.
Monday, July 22, 2019
Ms. Dog say Bork Bork
I'd like to tell you about the dogs. I probably have already mentioned them but I want to make sure that all the johnny-come-latelies can get up to speed. So, our dog-story so far: I have a dog. Have, while he is mine (h/t Bill S.) an angry little doggo named Sparky. He is called by many names -- Sparkles, Sparkster, Spark-o, Sparks, Thor (by my brother, but that makes sense because he calls his daughter Natasha), but his name is Sparky. He is the last angry dog until the next angry dog. He is a prolific writer (2 books, with 2 or 3 in the works, and a blog) and a dog of unquestioned brilliance and cute-osity. He has a friend named Princess. She is is nice, if you like bundles of slobbery tongues, and has the brains of a swarm of drunk pebbles. They spend a lot of time together (but the relationship is purely gin-tonic). They were over this afternoon, and the rain started coming down.
Let's talk weather. Sparky is OK with weather. If it rains, it snows or glooms, Sparky just sits there, knowing that as long as he can maintain his bladder, he will be staying inside, away from the elements and molecules that make up weather. Princess is a little different. She is afraid of stuff. She is fast as a dingo, vicious as a dingo and dumb as a dingo, but she is really afraid of thunder. At the first dip in barometric pressure she starts to shake like a milkshake held by a Parkinson's patient. Not my best image, but you get what I'm saying. She shakes. Her human puts a special thunder shirt on her (not one supporting a professional team...one with weights built in that is supposed to give her the reassuring pressure which tells her that if the thunder comes, she will now be too slow to escape it so she might as well just siddown and die) and she runs up the stairs where, she figures, thunder won't think to look for her.
The thunder started and Princess ran. I decided that inclement weather was the best time to start making a chicken omelet. Like there's a bad time to start making a chicken omelet -- amirite? Boo-ya.
As an inducement to stop being stupid, I told the dogs that I would be handling uneaten chicken, their favorite kind. As I began prepping, Sparky wandered in and I rewarded him with pieces of leftover fowl. I continued cooking, using up my store of secret ingredients: oil and a pan. As I shredded chicken, I called out, "Hey Princess, I have chicken."
Now this is where things get difficult for me.
She did not appear. I called again, "Princess! Chicken." Sparky looked at me as if to remind me that he was RIGHT THERE and why was I not giving him chicken instead of inviting his sworn enemy when it comes to chicken eating. I gave him a piece so that he would stop staring at me, then I raised my voice, "Dammit Princess, I have chicken! What are you waiting for?" Nothing. So I started muttering.
Please know, muttering and I have a long and colorful history. I mutter all the time. I'm the grand mutter of muttering. I started muttering to myself how this dumb dog wasn't coming down to get chicken while I'm here cooking my chicken fingers to the boneless. I realized that, at that moment, I had gotten angry at a dog because said dog (and I did, indeed, say "dog") did not come down when I called her name and explained why she should come down. Again. I got angry at a dog, a dog whom I have already characterized as not as intelligent as another dog, for not understanding my logic which I so cogently explained in words. I believe that this bespeaks some very strange transformation in my mental processes, and not a good one.
Princess ultimately showed up, lured by the smell of cooking chicken and the cessation of thunder and my wrath abated. My senseless, stupid wrath aimed at a dog who did not live up to my human expectations. I'm not sure what to make of this, or what lesson to glean. Alls I know is that of the two of us, me and Princess, one of us gets to wear a cool thunder shirt and the other has to do the cooking.
Let's talk weather. Sparky is OK with weather. If it rains, it snows or glooms, Sparky just sits there, knowing that as long as he can maintain his bladder, he will be staying inside, away from the elements and molecules that make up weather. Princess is a little different. She is afraid of stuff. She is fast as a dingo, vicious as a dingo and dumb as a dingo, but she is really afraid of thunder. At the first dip in barometric pressure she starts to shake like a milkshake held by a Parkinson's patient. Not my best image, but you get what I'm saying. She shakes. Her human puts a special thunder shirt on her (not one supporting a professional team...one with weights built in that is supposed to give her the reassuring pressure which tells her that if the thunder comes, she will now be too slow to escape it so she might as well just siddown and die) and she runs up the stairs where, she figures, thunder won't think to look for her.
The thunder started and Princess ran. I decided that inclement weather was the best time to start making a chicken omelet. Like there's a bad time to start making a chicken omelet -- amirite? Boo-ya.
As an inducement to stop being stupid, I told the dogs that I would be handling uneaten chicken, their favorite kind. As I began prepping, Sparky wandered in and I rewarded him with pieces of leftover fowl. I continued cooking, using up my store of secret ingredients: oil and a pan. As I shredded chicken, I called out, "Hey Princess, I have chicken."
Now this is where things get difficult for me.
She did not appear. I called again, "Princess! Chicken." Sparky looked at me as if to remind me that he was RIGHT THERE and why was I not giving him chicken instead of inviting his sworn enemy when it comes to chicken eating. I gave him a piece so that he would stop staring at me, then I raised my voice, "Dammit Princess, I have chicken! What are you waiting for?" Nothing. So I started muttering.
Please know, muttering and I have a long and colorful history. I mutter all the time. I'm the grand mutter of muttering. I started muttering to myself how this dumb dog wasn't coming down to get chicken while I'm here cooking my chicken fingers to the boneless. I realized that, at that moment, I had gotten angry at a dog because said dog (and I did, indeed, say "dog") did not come down when I called her name and explained why she should come down. Again. I got angry at a dog, a dog whom I have already characterized as not as intelligent as another dog, for not understanding my logic which I so cogently explained in words. I believe that this bespeaks some very strange transformation in my mental processes, and not a good one.
Princess ultimately showed up, lured by the smell of cooking chicken and the cessation of thunder and my wrath abated. My senseless, stupid wrath aimed at a dog who did not live up to my human expectations. I'm not sure what to make of this, or what lesson to glean. Alls I know is that of the two of us, me and Princess, one of us gets to wear a cool thunder shirt and the other has to do the cooking.
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Hello, girls
I know what I am planning to do and I know that I will fail.
I want to write a heartwarming piece of drivel aimed at my niece who will be getting married next week. But every time I start to write, I come up with things that are so mired in the feelings I want to present to my own children that I end up with something which masquerades as an uncle's good wishes to a niece but is in truth, a dad's mush to his kids. So instead of fighting, I concede to the powers of the muse who pushes me into this and I embrace it.
Riks -- and I call you that for the same reason that I call your older sister Shasha -- because it is still the name that I am most comfortable with, so deal with it...my own kids wish I called them something akin to their actual names. Riks, you have always been a bundle of joy. You have always amazed me with skills and talents that make me want to kill you and eat your brain so I could have that talent. I saw that on TV so it must be true. Your smile is infectious, but in a good way and you are, as we in academia like to to say, a good egg. I want to tell you about what your life should be by explaining to you one of my major fears.
I have always worried that my children were sad. I still worry that. What I wish for people is happiness and I try to bring that to them. When my kids were little(r) I used to wake them up with a song. Not one that I sang, God forbid, remember, I wanted to bring them happiness. I would get a song like Morning has Broken or Morning from Peer Gynt or something like that and slowly increase the volume. I would give them a kiss and help them stretch a big stretch to start the day with a smile. I wanted them to know that they are waking up into a world in which someone appreciates them for just being who they are. I wanted them to wake up with a smile because in this nasty and brutish world they should know that they are loved. I wanted them to know that someone was thinking of them when they were asleep and will continue to keep them in mind while they are awake not because of anything in particular but just because. That's what love is. The love of a dad for a kid, and the love of a spouse for a spouse -- unconditional and irrevocable. Like a good wine.
I'm not sure it is like a good wine, but I have always wanted to say that. "Like a good wine." There. Scratched that itch but good.
And we're back.
So Rik, I want you to have a happiness that is so grounded in an unconditional love that you can't shake it. I want you to wake up and know that there are people, and one very special person, who choose to be around you because you are their first and last thought. And many in between. I want you to grab hold of a love not because it replaces another but because it is, on its own, worth grabbing. Wake up to a song, go through your day with a smile and end each evening knowing that you matter to someone more than anything else matters. I hope I didn't fail with my kids. I think back to the mornings when I was a bit more sour than sweet, and they were a bit more human than ideal. I regret the moments I missed bringing them joy and I want you to be more aware so you miss fewer opportunities.
I want you, and my own kids, to feel a safety net, a network, even if only of one person but more likely, of many, that will always be there for you. Put someone else first and be put first. My blessing to you is that I hope you have a joy inside you that you can and want to share and that you have found someone to share it with, someone who wants to share right back with you.
And if you don't want to listen to Cat Stevens, I'll understand, but that song really can make you choke up...which is a problem when you are driving.
I want to write a heartwarming piece of drivel aimed at my niece who will be getting married next week. But every time I start to write, I come up with things that are so mired in the feelings I want to present to my own children that I end up with something which masquerades as an uncle's good wishes to a niece but is in truth, a dad's mush to his kids. So instead of fighting, I concede to the powers of the muse who pushes me into this and I embrace it.
Riks -- and I call you that for the same reason that I call your older sister Shasha -- because it is still the name that I am most comfortable with, so deal with it...my own kids wish I called them something akin to their actual names. Riks, you have always been a bundle of joy. You have always amazed me with skills and talents that make me want to kill you and eat your brain so I could have that talent. I saw that on TV so it must be true. Your smile is infectious, but in a good way and you are, as we in academia like to to say, a good egg. I want to tell you about what your life should be by explaining to you one of my major fears.
I have always worried that my children were sad. I still worry that. What I wish for people is happiness and I try to bring that to them. When my kids were little(r) I used to wake them up with a song. Not one that I sang, God forbid, remember, I wanted to bring them happiness. I would get a song like Morning has Broken or Morning from Peer Gynt or something like that and slowly increase the volume. I would give them a kiss and help them stretch a big stretch to start the day with a smile. I wanted them to know that they are waking up into a world in which someone appreciates them for just being who they are. I wanted them to wake up with a smile because in this nasty and brutish world they should know that they are loved. I wanted them to know that someone was thinking of them when they were asleep and will continue to keep them in mind while they are awake not because of anything in particular but just because. That's what love is. The love of a dad for a kid, and the love of a spouse for a spouse -- unconditional and irrevocable. Like a good wine.
I'm not sure it is like a good wine, but I have always wanted to say that. "Like a good wine." There. Scratched that itch but good.
And we're back.
So Rik, I want you to have a happiness that is so grounded in an unconditional love that you can't shake it. I want you to wake up and know that there are people, and one very special person, who choose to be around you because you are their first and last thought. And many in between. I want you to grab hold of a love not because it replaces another but because it is, on its own, worth grabbing. Wake up to a song, go through your day with a smile and end each evening knowing that you matter to someone more than anything else matters. I hope I didn't fail with my kids. I think back to the mornings when I was a bit more sour than sweet, and they were a bit more human than ideal. I regret the moments I missed bringing them joy and I want you to be more aware so you miss fewer opportunities.
I want you, and my own kids, to feel a safety net, a network, even if only of one person but more likely, of many, that will always be there for you. Put someone else first and be put first. My blessing to you is that I hope you have a joy inside you that you can and want to share and that you have found someone to share it with, someone who wants to share right back with you.
And if you don't want to listen to Cat Stevens, I'll understand, but that song really can make you choke up...which is a problem when you are driving.
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
You're wrong, but more importantly, you're bad
I received a message from a former student this morning. He is one of the few who actually spends his time thinking about stuff and working through deep concepts so I was flattered that he included me in the loop of thought. He mentioned that he is disheartened by the state of the modern world in certain ways. He wrote, "I hate how judgmental society and especially the Modern Orthodox Jewish community is". That got me thinking, a dangerous eventuality but what's done is done and so I'm thinking. Kaboom. So here is a bit of brain pie from your Crazy Uncle Dan for you to chew over. And over.
I'll start by opining about being judgmental. We all do it. We size up situations and see what fits and what doesn't into the box which is the society we have set for ourselves. "Look at that guy" we say, "he just changed lanes with(out) his blinker...that's horrible." We have judged him. "How about that joker...(not) wearing pants at such a fancy restaurant...what is he thinking?" Judging, again. As we belong to a variety of overlapping communities, cultures and societies, our schema for judging runs a range. From parenting, to diet, to fashion, to sports to religion -- we look at what others do and decide if their expression of self is acceptable in our little world.
We judge because we are insulating ourselves and defining the parameters of comfort in our bubble. We create an in and an out group so we know who belongs and who doesn't. It keeps us safe and helps us decide whom to invite over for dinner and a nice game of Pictionary. It isn't a bad thing all the time but it has fallen out of favor because of where it can lead -- not Pictionary, judging. Should we profile people? Do I cross the street to stay away from some people, or do I pay more attention to certain age groups when they enter my store because my experience has taught me that certain genders or ages are more likely to engage in unsavory activities? Do I have to wait for actions before I can judge even if, by the time the actions take place, the damage could be done? How about people who espouse beliefs -- can I judge them on the whole by their expressed positions in one area? Do I have to accept everyone all the time or am I allowed to say "anyone who hates little dogs is dead to me"? Must I be tolerant or even accepting of all the divergent opinions? One common answer is "this doesn't mean you can judge the person" but maybe I can! If someone's position is pro-rape, I think I'm pretty safe in judging on the whole and not saying "he's just a fine person with a singular point that we disagree on."
When it comes to religion, things get even murkier -- part of judging is the attempt to further a heritage which is the defined society. Religious rules and norms ensure continuance of a community so we judge because we are perpetuating norms which got us this far. If we accept variation, we risk losing our discrete identity, but if we don't we look like ultra-traditionalists who can't face change. Some of us chafe at this restrictiveness and say that we, as a people have changed a bunch over the years so why stop now? But then the fear emerges: if we let a little change, how do we draw the line and decide that the next step is off the cliff? Back in the day (the year 1100, for example, maybe even 1101) changes we very local and moved slowly because communication was sans internet (true!). So if there was a need for a limited change, it took a while to get around and sink in. Now, things are a step faster than instant so we have changes upon changes and the slippery slope surrounds us constantly. Our reaction is to build our walls more solidly and allow even less because we have more potential for drastic shifts. Additionally, built into Orthodox Judaism is the need to judge. We have laws and responsa which establish the limits of behavior and we have to enforce and call people out when they stray. The only way we can continue as a unified group is by walking the walk, talking the talk and correcting those who don't. And while it is attractive to excuse (or at least ignore) private behavior and say that what we don't know doesn't affect what we do know, the current atmosphere is to allow the private to be public without repercussion, forcing the religious person to have an opinion and, yes, judge.
Here are two side analogies. They're free, so go with it.
Some Jewish communities are turned into a particular legal-construct as a "private domain" through the use of an eiruv (a string surrounding the entire community). In the past, because of physical limitations, the status of the integrity of the string could only be checked on a particular schedule, let's say monthly. "Monthly." Well done. If there is no reason to think that, in between checks, it has broken, we rely on what we last knew. But now, with drones and other technology, maybe we could check it more frequently and know definitively more often if it retains its proper structure. We can no longer hide behind "it was ok last week". More technology means more knowledge which means more definite opinions.
We know more and more about food production, and there are more cameras installed so we don't have to trust restaurants -- we can check up on them. And if we find out about problems that maybe were always there, now we have to act on them. For a position paper on a similar situation, read here. Before we knew, we could withhold judging. But once we know, we have to say something.
So we judge. We tell people when they are doing something which we don't approve of and we hope that our society's norms will be refined by the mass acceptance of a particular mode of behavior and the condemning of another. What we disapprove of through something approaching consensus draws our line in the sands of time. The tension between "modern society" and "modern Orthodoxy" pulls us in mutually exclusive directions as it relates to judging.
We have always judged as Jews. But we have chosen to know less and trust more. That era might be over. We know more and can trust less because we can know even more. With greater knowledge comes a greater responsibility to establish those lines or risk losing our defining shape. Do I like judging? Not especially. But is it part of who we are as humans and Jews? Yes. For good and for bad, yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)