My Channukah

 Apologies in advance -- this will be less about Channukah than about the creeping intrusion of Christmas into the mass consciousness and its effect on Channukah (among other things). But I just couldn't waste the delicious pun in the title so there you go.

I got into a conversation on an internet forum (ok, an argument, I guess) about the decision in Dedham, MA not to have (and then, yes to have) a Christmas tree put up in the local library. You can google it -- I'm sure the story is out there. I am a firm believer that all religious symbols, for any religion, belong in spaces reserved for the private expression of belief. Your house, even your lawn are fine by me. Your car? Great. But public (i.e. municipal) spaces which are supported by and affiliated with government should be devoid of such imagery. Grinch much? Yes, and I'm OK with that. I'm not in favor of "have one, but have them all" because we can never get "all" and people start to chafe when the "all" includes religions (and modes of expression) which the majority decides are inappropriate. Then it becomes a popularity contest, with each group either vying for the approval of the (Christian) majority or going to court to force itself down the public throat, breeding resentment. Here is an article which relates.

Am I being overly sensitive? Well, I'm not in the majority and I'm not especially popular, so maybe my sensitivity is borne of experience, personal and historical. To say that I'm being overly sensitive is to discount the validity of my experience, something which is easily done by those who don't share that. If I have been stung by a bee and I freak out when I see another bee, someone who has never been stung might think I am being overly scared. No, I'm being properly scared based on my own interactions with bees. Don't tell me they aren't scary because YOU aren't scared. Feel free to speak out of your frame of reference but don't you dare discount mine as equally valid.

Anyway, in this discussion, it was brought up that the tree shouldn't be worried about because the courts have decided that it is a "secular" symbol and not one that represents religion. Bosh and/or piffle. No, strike the "or." Just bosh AND piffle. A Christmas tree is a religious symbol and this can be demonstrated in 2 ways:

1. Its name. "Christmas" Tree. 

2. Its affiliation in thought and timing with a Christian holiday.

If you disagree with my logic, then I would suggest trying to put a tree up in July with the statement "Happy Summer's Day" (or even on Arbor day!) and see who shows up to put tinsel on it, wearing a Santa hat and depositing presents. These are trappings of Christmas whether or not they have any biblical connection to whatever the day is supposed to mean (and, trust me, there is plenty of controversy over the actual religious/biblical value or authenticity to Christmas, but for over 1500 years, the holiday has ben adopted and inextricably linked to Christian mythos).

The statement that the tree is a secular symbol is the height of arrogance. And trust you me, I know from arrogance. To decide that a symbol which has value to only one subgroup is not religious, but representative of a larger, secular culture is manipulation which develops from a Christian-centric view of the world. The idea that Christian symbology is synonymous with American culture is due to the pervasive presence of the tree in the mass consciousness and the resultant monopoly Christian thought has in deciding what it is to be American. Yes, one can make all sorts of arguments about the existence of solstice-awareness in the stories of many religions (Judaism included) and ecologically minded actions, but all of this is a posteriori rationalization.

For the tree to have value as a cultural and secular symbol in America it must speak to the experience, values and identity of the American people. July 4th is a secular and uniquely American experience because it commemorates a defining moment in our collective history. I, as an American am, BY DEFINITION, included in the group that Independence Day created. A day celebrating the presidents, veterans who live and died for this country, or even the social and economic achievement of American worker makes sense. Democracy celebrating democracy. Capitalism celebrating capitalism. Maybe it smacks of a Hollywood awards show, celebrities giving each other prizes for being celebrities, but at least it stands for something specifically American.

Where in the annals of US history is the tree an important or formative item? G. Washington chopped one down (no, he didn't, at least not in the "cannot tell a lie" way...a story which, interestingly, sounds like a revisionist version of Abraham and his father's idols) but other than that, the tree comes from an outside culture which adopted it from another outside culture. And, yes, I feel that the 10 commandments is similarly still a religious symbol. Did our secular system of laws pay homage to a biblical concept? Maybe, but then let's have an image of the signing of the Constitution in our courthouses and not a statue of anyone with the 10 commandments. Like here.

When we embrace the idea that Christian superiority allows that mindset to impose its symbols under the guise of "it equals the American experience" we exclude all of those to whom (and for whom) that symbol does not speak. And what if a Muslim was the one to decide that he tree is no longer religious? Does anyone outside the group have the right to strip the religion of its symbol? Or is that the prerogative only of the insider who wants to see what he values in every location, so he plays word games in order to get around law?

And, yes, I feel this way about "Secret Santa" and its Jewish equivalents. Tis not the season for presents. There might be a Jewish value to giving coins specifically ON Channukah, but the influx of imitative traditions ("Mystery Maccabee" I'm looking at you) is nauseating. Do we really want to be like them so much that we will turn our holiday experience from being a celebration of unique identity into an opportunity to lose that identity and co-opt a non-Jewish practice? We might as call Channukah the Festival of Lies then. Songs about hypocrisy, irony and capitulation would needs be composed.

My Channukah is a religious experience; it has no "Channukah Bush." It is defined by history, codified in religious texts and driven by my obligation to follow the laws of my religion and my pride at being affiliated with both the historical events and the chain of transmission and existence which keep that history vital and relevant. I light candles. I say blessings and change my daily liturgy. I might sing songs which celebrate the divine and his miraculous presence. I will not ask anyone to value this if that person doesn't share in my experience and, in truth, I don't want him to (see here). Being asked to share in someone else's religious values, or even buy into the lie that will force me to be part of another's religious experience by pretending that it represents me on a different level is patently offensive.

If this is a war on Christmas because people want to claim that Christmas is a secular/cultural holiday, then so be it. You want it to be secular? Rename it "Giving-Day" and put it in June. Tell churches not to have any special services. Somehow I don't think that this will happen.

In Judaism, and mainly in the dietary laws of Kashrut, there is a notion that a minority is subsumed in a majority and loses its individual identity. By allowing the "melting pot" to mix us in, we will start tasting like the majority. We have to hold on to what makes us "us" and keep our distinct flavor while separating from the others. Even our "minor" holiday (rabbinic and not requiring much in the way of cessation of creating actions) needs to be a holy-day, and we should stop aspiring to be like Christians in our observances because we are accepting that this somehow makes us more American.

More Human Thoughts

 The Chatbot making the rounds has inspired a sheaf of thought and writing, and the irony isn't lost on me. A few have even begun to try and contextualize the quantum leap forward in natural language chatting and essay writing that the GPT 3.5 system has introduced.

If you recall, my concern isn't that students can pass work off as their own, but that those who receive the work will be ok with that because the skill of writing qua writing will no longer be deemed essential. As such, we can leave the essay writing for the computers because students will have ubiquitous technology to perform such menial tasks as composing a response to literature. My fear is that by exempting students from learning the skill, we will miss the opportunity to inculcate fundamental and exportable thinking skills. Paralleling this technology to the use of a calculator, students can rely on having a phone or a computer or an actual calculator so they need not understand either how to add 2 and 2 or what it means to compute and consider the relationships between values. There is a utility of mathematical thinking which is lost if we can jump to getting the answer automatically. Understanding what it means to solve for x is as valuable as actually solving for x. The same holds true for writing.

It isn't about comma splices and tense agreement. It is about organizing thoughts in your own brain before you commit them to paper. We have to train the brain to make the choices which will most efficiantly distill experience and emotion and help us create with others. Writing is a tool towads thinking so we can't expect one without the other. Writing is, like any applied grammar or vacabulary, a method of acculturation and assimilation into a society. Following the agreed upon norms demonstrates an ability to integrate, to subsume the self within the greater good of membership in the collective. It shows a consciousness of the decision to encode in a way that can be decoded by a particular audience. Only by understanding the rules of rhyme and rhythm can one choose to exercise poetic license and break the rules. Only by understanding sense can one choose to employ nonsense as a communicative tool. To be illogical, to express on whim and not by dint of algorithm is a cultivatable skill, unless we decide that we don't value the individual voice.

Maybe we need to rethink the value of writing for the regular person. Maybe we have to be bold enough to say that the average person does not need to think and the stratification of society which we apply to every other field applies to English as well. Not everyone is an artist. Not everyone is a mathematician. Not everyone is an athlete. And the product each of the experts can create is approximatable by technology. But the value in the human expression is something we admire and which is resident in only a small group. Anyone can learn to play a scale on a piano, or do basic addition or even to stack bricks. But not everyone has a complex story to tell, or any interest in computing interest, or designing a building. So maybe we should rework the entire educational curriculum. Eliminate all that can be performed by technology and leave only the specialized and advanced classes for those who gravitate to that. So for the "math people" out there, by the time 7th or 8th grade rolls around, the few left will automatically struggle and succeed through more advanced classes because they WANT to, and they won't have to waste any time learning about covalent bonds, the French Revolution or the ablative case.

Should we start by assembling data from other fields? Do we ask math teachers if students are having more or less success at the more advanced levels of math because/despite their inability to interpolate logorithms, solve formulae or multiply two-digit numbers in their heads? Can we expect students to be able to evaluate, assess and even correct material that they can't initially create? Should we be expecting a continued dumbing down of society and yet still complain about it?

And all of this broaches another reality -- the AI relies on both programming and a data pool of information. Though it can be programmed to evaluate the content, it cannot judge on any sort of humanistic level. Its rules are rules and it has no gut to follow. If it does, in any sense, have that "instinct" it does only as a function of the programming and the programmer. Thus, its built in value system is a reflection of, even a projection of the person who put in the code and set the rules. This, then, reinforces the social structure -- the well educated computer person imposes his vision of right and wrong, good and bad and valuable and useless onto the measuring system, so the computer, when it generates text, simply expresses the views of its creator under the guise of impartiality.

I have no doubt that by now, computers can generate lovely melodies, draw pictures both highly realistic and incredibly abstract. A computer can produce beautiful writing. If not now, then soon, computers will generate combinations of words which follow grammatical rules and even embody the stylistic and inexpressibly emotional elements which we cannot teach but which some programmer used as a driving ethos when he taught the computer to create content, and the pool of raw data and precedenting material upon which the computer bases its creations is broad enough that the computer can invoke styles and types which run the range of human experience. But all that means is that we will exempt humanity from the struggle to do the same thing and find its own level on a person-by-person basis, develop its own voice and create content of which it can be proud.

So let me bottom line, tl;dr it for you. The English classroom must continue and writing must needs continue to be taught not because we think that the creation of essays and responses is necessarily a valuable skill, nor because we worry that students will be without technology, stranded on a deserted island, and yet still need to write a cover letter for a job application. But writing must be taught because we want students to be able to rise from their status as intellectual have-nots and unlock the more complex thinking that stands on the shoulders of whatever genius lives within each of us. We won't know who is "not a writing person" if we abandon the activity before it has a chance to blossom.

previous thoughts (even tangentially) on the matter

https://rosends.blogspot.com/2013/08/blenderized-learning.html

https://rosends.blogspot.com/2014/12/look-it-up.html

https://rosends.blogspot.com/2017/11/what-hath-internet-wrought.html

https://rosends.blogspot.com/2018/03/2-rantz.html

Shall We Play a Game?

 Thanks to the hard work of the Tech Rav I have been informed that there is an active chatbot which uses artificial intelligence and can do things like parse code, hold conversations and write stories and essays.

I'm not jazzed. Let's discuss.

I'm in favor of intelligence. I think one of the smartest things we can do is be intelligent. And I'm even OK with aritifical intelligence. I think of it like artificial ingredients -- as long as the food tastes good and can last in the car's glove compartment for an extra coupla weeks, then I'm good with it. The problem is in the impact (and I'm turning teacher now) on the educational process and the development of the adolescent brain. When applicable.

So, first thing -- I tried it out, and saw the results of others' attempts to use the service. My assessment is "good but not great." The chat service has limitations built in and it knows it so it admits those at every opportunity. It is very careful about explaining that it cannot think or opine (though it insists that it can synthesize and innovate, claims I find hard to test as it would require that I know all extant conclusions and can spot if the AI provides something heretofore unrecorded), and somehow is programmed to avoid (whatever the programmer's agenda defines as) hate speech or speaking too admiringly of people that it is not in vogue to admire. It ends up in a circular loop when you ask it about how it assesses sources it uses. But it is a very powerful natural language research tool. The essay/book summary I read was pretty poorly "written." I have to wonder what sources the AI borrowed from in order to produce the content (as I doubt the computer actually read the book in question), but the sentence structure and word choices were not good at all. I say this with a caveat -- to a casual reader, I would guess that the sentences sounded fine. But to an English teacher, or one really inspecting the structure, they were below average in composition.

Years ago, I envisioned a scenario in which a computer wrote poetry. The masses loved it (the pretend poem, not the idea) and this was the saddest part. I also saw a TV program on which an elephant painted a picture and a child created something which passed (to the uninformed) as a Jackson Pollock. The line between brilliance and crap seems awful thin sometimes. Art is always subjective so if an AI wants to create, I can see that creation passing all sorts of tests and vetting because the end result either resonates or doesn't, source be damned. The fact that a text is not driven by actual experience and insight might be troubling but if we calue the end product over the process, then so be it. I did try out one of those AI-art websites at which you describe the image you want and the system creates it for you. It didn't. Major fail so I'm still in need of an illustrator for a side project. That's a story for another day.

But over the years, I have heard, too often, about skills which are no longer relevant because we have technology which can replace them. How many people think that any of the following is still worth teaching (or learnng)? Note -- this list is not about physical skills but intellectual exercises:

reading maps, doing basic math, using a library/research, interpolating logarithms, reading an analog clock, learning to spell

Odds are, you saw at least one item on that list that you don't think we should spend time teaching because of the ubiquitous technology which makes that no longer a valuable skill. So, next question -- would you be ok if any of the items on the following list fell by the wayside in the same way?

driving a car, writing an essay, reading a lengthy book, diagnosing an illness, doing advanced math, designing a bridge, umpiring a baseball game, providing emotional therapy, ruling in a court case

Some of you would be more than happy to hand any and all of those items over to the ersatz mind of silicone. Others might try to draw a line somewhere and explain why "yes to this but no to that." Hours could be spent arguing but that's not my point. That's just a hobby...

Here is where I see the problem -- NOT in that a student might employ an AI system to write an essay and then said student might hand in the essay pretending to be the author. Yes, that's bad and, yes, teachers will have to find ways to detect artificially constructed material. But the big problem will be when people say that teachers DON'T have to detect constructed material. At a certain point, I suspect that people who say, "It is fine that no one has to learn how to read a map because we have computers  which hcan tell us turn-by-turn directions" will say, "It is OK that no one has to learn how to write an essay because we have computers who can do that just as well." Those people insist that we are freeing students up to apply themselves to more complex thinking and learning because we aren't bogging them down and wasting their time with easy stuff that technology can do for us. And to the concern that the AI created responses are not very good (and if a student were to turn one in, it would be cause for learning and inmprovement, not as a static end result) too often people rely on the "but it is good enough so since it seems like a student could have written it, it shows that a student doesn't have to waste his time writing it."

What people don't understand is that knowledge is a progression and the advanced and critical thinking skills that we all say we value only exist on a solid foundation of basic skills. All those higher order thinking skills cannot be built on staircases of sand. One cannot play chess on an advanced level without learning the basics of the game and memorizing how the pieces move. One cannot be a successful NBA player without learning the basics of how to dribble. All advanced knowledge and all advanced skills come as the result of long term hard work, standing on the shoulders of practice at the fundamentals. If we cut the legs out by saying a student doesn't need to know how to do addition in his or her head because he or shee will always have a calculator nearby, then not only are we disadvantaging that student when he or she is in a tech-free environment (yes, they exist), but we are not demanding that the student understands the mechanics of arithmetic which will allow for the model of thinking which unlocks advanced math. Not knowing "how" leads to never understanding "why" and that presents a problem. A student who lets a computer do research never learns the value of the hunt, the struggle of thinking unpredictably in order to find something unexpected, or the need to evaluate sources and prioritize data. A student who lets the computer write never learns to organize thoughts, or communicate persuasively, or work reflectively and struggle to improve -- there is no respect for the rules of grammar so all communication becomes tainted by ignorance. These are exportable skills which can't really be taught in a vaccuum. They are part of a brain-growing mindset. How can we expect that we will have a next generation of advanced thinkers if we don't demand the development of thinking skills but instead, assume that at a certain age, never having had to grow, those brains will be ready to be advanced?

I'm no luddite. I'm not even ludesque but I like my pedagogical change like a like my roller coasters -- slow and predictable, without sudden changes and with not a lot of vomitting. AI has a place, and, yes, that place will grow as we figure out the most effective way to incorporate the advantages of machine thinking without losing the elements necessary to keep human thinking staying steps ahead, so that we can design the next generation of AI.

Meanwhile, I, a human wrote this. So there. 

Who are you?

Ultimately, ultimately, ultimately, we will come into conflict with ourselves. Bottom line is that the various shards and facets of our identity cease to co-exist because there can be only one at the top spot. And we can dance around that eventuality and skirt it most of the time, it will find a way to make itself known. Who we are is so convoluted and complex but peel it all away and there are truths that are mutually exclusive and we have to choose.

It isn’t fun and it isn’t fair but it is the way it is. While we can try to reconcile all those disparate elements, some run so counter to others that being both is impossible. We can pride ourselves on being “modern-Orthodox” but on some base level, that hybrid is doomed to failure. Once we allow certain behaviors as functions of our modernity, then we have sold out the underlying thread which defines us as Orthodox. And, yes, to some degree, all of life is compromise for most people. Shabbat isn’t 25 hours of straight and consistent focus on the spiritual or the divine. We live in a world in which many have found how to justify reading a newspaper, chatting with friends about life and walking the dog. But the moment we employ whatever leniency in our understanding to allow that inch, our logical application of extensions tries to take the mile. If there is an eiruv designed to allow me to carry a holy book, can I carry my keys? Once I allow my keys, what about a newspaper? Or a game? Or a ball?

If I am in a building, so I don’t have to worry about the limitations of the eiruv’s rules, can I do something which is not inherently breaking the rules but isn’t in the nebulous “spirit” of the Sabbath? Am I keeping the day’s intention with or without inspecting the minutiae?

A current question surrounds a sports figure who, though he seems to abide by the various trappings of religion, chooses to play on the Sabbath. Does this encourage young people to opt in favor of competition on the Sabbath as the new and accepted/sanctioned normal? Is it bad enough that we silently condone, but this elevates the behavior through institutionalized approval? Or do we criticize the choice because it is at odds with traditional practice and we refuse to moderate our hold on the past? When is it authentic? When it evolves into modernity or when it resists change and rests on traditional laurels. This tension can never be resolved but we lie to ourselves and tell each other that there is a golden mean, a path amidst the mighty waters. It cannot be.

Sometimes we just have to choose, and let one adjective which describes our character come in second and that has to be good enough. It is only through this crucible of choice that we find out who we really are. We are not both and we are not serving two masters and while we can find ways, on a daily basis, to lead a life which exploits the overlap and downplays the friction we have to accept that this will inevitably and consistently lead down that slippery slope. And when it reaches a red-line we will have to accept that, in that moment, at that tipping point, we are either fully modern or fully Orthodox.

A Skin in the Game

This morning, while in the shower and looking around I spied the label on one of the hair products the wife uses. Usually, showers are a scenic rest stop but this morning the label caught my eye. It said "Vegan" on it. Color me confused.

I thought "vegan" was a label for people who don't EAT any animal based product or for food products following this same set of strictures. I'm not saying that I relish washing my hair with filet mignon but I really thought this was about eating. So I'm going to raise some questions and all you vegans out there (we know who you are) can explain stuff to me.

First, is veganism(ology?) limited to eating? Do you wear leather shoes, belts of kippot? Is any aversion to leather simply because an animal had to die? Or would you be against a company that produced leather from the carcasses of cows that, it can be verified, died of natural causes?

What about other animal products that aren't food? Does a vegan wear wool? I have heard that sheep NEED to be shorn for health reasons (read this article and see). Though I must admit - were I to live in a world filled with over-sized balls of fluff wandering around, that would be neat-o! What about snake skin that has been molted or antlers that have been shed? Can these be used by vegans if the animals CHOSE to get rid of them? Squid ink pasta where the squid ink is harvested ethically? Tzitzit using a blue dye from some sort of snail? Coral earrings? (Coral is alive) Beauty ingredients derived from urine which the animal "donates" willingly? (and you can do your own googling about this -- it is a thing. A gross, gross thing)

A step further -- and no, I'm not going to ask about yogurt, though I once tried to explain to a vegan that her plant-based yogurt might still have active cultures in it and those little guys are "alive" in some sense. If animal products and ingestion are the problem then what about mushrooms and strawberries? Each, in its lifecycle, benefits from the application of cow poop. Or to be less scatalogical, plants grown using mulch which requires little guys to live and work to break down stuff. And if the food products being composted are animal based?

Feather/down pillows, comforters or jackets? Petroleum products which develop from the all sorts of micro-organisms? 

Looking forward to some clarification. And I should probably take fewer showers.

Clear!

 Allow me to complain for a moment. Well, actally, I don't really care if you allow me -- I'm going to complain. This is what the blog was originally designed for so I'm going back to my roots and complaining.

I wear glasses, and this is usually something I'm ok with. Sure, no one makes passes at me, but also, fewer people hit me and I can take them off or put them on for dramatic effect. So there's that. Over the years I have had a bunch of pairs of glasses so I have gotten a bit expert in dealing with them. My most recent pair was purchased about a year and a half ago. The prescription is (to my mind) a little stronger than I need but I'm dealing with it. Possibly by weakening my eyes. It's all good.

About 2 weeks ago, I noticed that there seemed to be (for lack of a better term) schmutz on the glasses that I couldn't clean. I looked the glasses and saw that both lenses have a whole lotta little marks. They don't feel like scratches (I ran my nail across and fely no nicks) and there are really so many of them all over the lenses. Now when I use the glasses, every light source has a halo and everything else is smudgy.

So I went to the store (well, first, I made plans to get new glasses but the plans fell through) to complain. Not that I'm expert at complaining in person but I thought that this would be good practice. When I showed the "Lab Technician" my glasses and explained that I treat them well, only wearing them, placing them down NOT on the lenses, or putting them in shirt or jacket pocket, he said, "well there's your problem. These are pocket scratches." He 'explained' that cloth like shirts can scratch glasses and one should always put them in a micro fiber bag before putting them one's pocket. I don't know if this is true but I'm skeptical.

Here's the thing -- I have been wearing glasses since before this "technician" was born. Really -- I'm that old and he is that young. I have been wearing glasses and putting them in my pocket for over 40 years and never have I ever seen this happen to a pair, even ones which I used for significantly more than 1.5 years. So it is a hard sell to tell me that putting glasses in a glasses shaped pocket causes spontaneous scratches.

I mentioned this to a co-worker and he said that he had the same problem and it had to do with a flaw in the lens, or the coating or something. I'm no scientist but I think that this is, indeed, more likely a lens problem and not a pocket cloth problem. So I still need to spend the money to get new glasses, and in the interim, I will be squinting, so stay off the roads. One thing is certain, though, and that's that I will be going to a different store next time. One with older lab technicians.

No Thanks for the Currency

I was trying to construct a line - you know, a humorous one off, as I am wont to do. Sometimes the muse descends and gifts me a completed joke but other times, I have to tinker and revise so the balance and flow are crafted to elicit the exact kind of reaction I need (a laugh, a groan, a punch in the nethers). I was also inspired by a gift from my family, a book called Letting Go Is All We Have To Hold Onto. This book is a collection of witticisms, some approaching Zen Koan-like status in their paradoxical nature. Often, when I write a line, it, too, has that same self-contradictory, or at least self-aware approach.

So I had something like "the only things I can't remember are my memories" but I didn't like the use of both "remember" and "memories" so I switched to "the only thing I can't remember is what happened" but that also presented as "I remember everything as long as it isn't in the past." It is still a work in some sort of gress, though many will deny that progress is the apparent direction. But it did get me thinking, and that's always a bad thing.

It isn't that I'm against reunions. I have developed an aversion to them because of how they have been presented to me. Time was, you had an experience and you let a requisite and necessary amount of time pass before you revisited it. Reunions were on anniversary years like 25, or 10. And I can accept "5" even. But then my kids went to camp and came back, ready for school. Note -- the camp situation that my kids went through was markedly different from mine. They went to camps that were favored by many of their friends from school and from the neighborhood. They fit in because they were like everyone else. I rarely went to camp, and when I went, I knew no one, and it mostly stayed that way throughout the summer. I was an unhappy child and that contributes to my sparkling personality now. Hurray.

My elder asked me if I could, on some weekend in September, drive her to her "camp reunion." She was having a reunion with people whom she knew well and many of whom she still saw frequently, weeks after returning from camp. Not years, and not even months. Weeks. I was reminded of the practice on one of our school retreats: students go on a bus together on a Thursday. They do activities on a Friday, spend a sabbath together and then have a bonfire on Saturday night. On Sunday morning, they watch a video recapping the weekend. They relive memories that are still happening.

It takes time to digest and consider, though maybe that's a vestige of an old fashioned way of thinking. In the era of instant gratification and computers that can pull up anything in the bl- of an eye (that's like, less than half a blink), maybe the new way of being is to reunite before there is any separation.

So why does this come to mind now? I got a message from my roommate from my first year of college recently. He showed me a picture of a hall mate of ours and we got to chatting. For the first time in over 30 years, we talked about some of the stories that developed during that year. We have spoken once or twice in the interim but those conversations were about current family and life concerns, not about 1987. We laughed (virtually) at strange things we did and I was able to thank him for being exactly the kind of roommate I needed at that time. It was nice, but it was also 30+ years in the making.

I needed to grow and learn to recognize and appreciate. Maybe I had an inkling of this after I graduated. Maybe it dawned on me 5 years later. The point is, I wasn't ready to have that conversation, and see things in proper hindsight in September of my second year of college. We, or maybe just I, need to absorb, analyze and reflect and that takes time. I'm not saying I don't love that Google can find me things in an instant, but I think that there is real merit in not reconnecting until we are different enough people that we can stand outside of our experiences and evaluate them dispassionately. We can make sense of our lives through the lens of time and by dint of having had significant other life events which create a context in which we can trace our own development.

We get together with old friends. We look at old photos and watch old movies of ourselves as children. We reminisce -- there is no value to just miniscing the first time. We want to get back something far gone, not something that is still part of who we are. 

I know, this isn't a new idea. TV shows like "That was the Week that Was" and "Last Week Tonight" have lampooned the idea that we look at anything before yesterday's episode of The Bachelorette as "history," to be dissected, reconsidered and critiqued. But those shows do so as satire, poking fun at the entire idea that we can develop nuanced understandings of our world so quickly. Until we can create distant memories of things that didn't happen, we can't really talk about what did. Or something pithy like that. I, too, am still a work in progress.