This idea once changed my life: three bites of a dessert is all you need.
Do I always live by this? Of course not. Three isn't a magic number or anything. But honestly? Rare is the dessert that requires more than a few bites to be fully enjoyed. After those first bites your palate has acclimated to it and the pleasure of it drops off dramatically. Suddenly you're eating it for other reasons than taste, often social reasons ("who stops after just three bites?") or inertia ("well, I'm already eating this and the path of least resistance is to keep going until I run out.") Those might be okay reasons for some people, but I'm personally in the camp of "work smarter, not harder." I like to maximize things (aka responsibly cut corners) as much as life allows. In my uphill battle to cut out sugar as much as I can (she says as she just got back from eating ice cream), I want to get as much bang for my sugar buck as possible. An unfortunate way sugar sneaks into my life is those "other reasons than taste." I want to squeeze every drop of enjoyment out of a dessert, and honestly, the best way I've found to do that is to eat less dessert.
Twice recently I've struck this deal with myself: "you can have a little of that sugary thing if you only have a little." In general, I intend to eat one piece of chocolate and end up telling myself "just one more," two, three, four or more times in a row. For some reason, this new phrasing helps: the condition upon which I can indulge is that I savor it. That actually makes sense. I'm not eating dessert for nourishment; why should I eat a lot of it? And what's the point of having it at all if I don't savor?
The surprising outcome both times: the less I eat, the more I enjoy. When I know I will only be having one or two pieces of chocolate, my perspective is vastly different. I want to be there while I'm eating it. The forced pause makes me remember: oh, right, I like chocolate and it's a big deal! Suddenly instead of just kind of enjoying the treat while distracted by other things, I find that I am all about it. When I sit down on the couch, close my eyes and really taste it, eating two pieces of chocolate is vastly more satisfying than several handfuls. I'm not sure how to quantify pleasure, but it's at least two or three times as good, which is crazy since I'm eating less than half of what I would normally.
Isn't this, like, the trick of life? I guess it's famous and its name is "less is more." I think having too much undercuts pleasure and appreciation by overloading and deadening our senses. As humans, there's only so much we can handle at once, including good feelings and physical enjoyment. Here's another cliche: "the best things in life are free." Like eating less candy.
Monday 30 May 2016
Wednesday 25 May 2016
Riddled with Contradictions?
I'm reading one of those rare books that has already
significantly influenced my thinking before I’ve read half of it. It's
called The Art of Living Consciously.
The author, Nathaniel Branden, begins with a quick, wonderfully concrete primer
about reason and rational thought that I've already spent hours contemplating and expounding upon in writing (for fun and hopefully an upcoming post or two).
I appreciate that this book is not written by a believer. I enjoy finding common ground with those whose spiritual views differ from my own. When I began the book, I didn't have any idea what the author's beliefs might be, so I instinctively looked for clues, since I usually find that a person's belief system colors every part of their thought conclusions.
The author condemns contradictions in thinking. He emphasizes in a pull-out quote that, “Most people are unaware that their thinking and value system may be riddled with contradictions.” I quite agree, and this can certainly extend to all manner of belief systems. One of my last blog posts is about this.
Branden says, “Sometimes we believe two statements are contradictory and later discover they are not, by expanding our knowledge to include a frame of reference in which a seeming incompatibility dissolves. For example, a person with only a limited understanding of the terms ‘religious’ and ‘spiritual’ might assume it is contradictory to say, ‘He is not religious, although he is very spiritual.’ A deeper understanding, however, would disclose that the presumed contradiction is only illusory.” When I read this, the wording gave me my first sense that I wouldn't have the same belief system as the author, that he'd claim spirituality while eschewing religion, but it was just a gut feeling. I agree with him that it's imprecise to conflate religiosity with spirituality.
Then I got another hint that was pretty hard to miss. Under “instances of teaching that do violence to a young mind" by containing inherent contradictions, he lists, "Ours is a god of love and infinite benevolence, and if you do not embrace him, he will make you burn forever in hell.” At first I was taken aback by this comment. Perhaps there's no hostility in it, but I automatically read it as though there was anger behind it. Of course anger is a fair response if this teaching is harming young minds. This is an objection to Christianity I've heard many times. But is it a fair one? Does it reflect what's really in the Bible or in sound theology? That is up for debate, I suppose. At any rate, I wanted a resolution that would satisfy me. I didn't want to permit contradictions in my thinking, especially having just read about reason. After some consideration I decided Branden might discover this is not as contradictory as he thinks by expanding his knowledge to a larger frame of reference. I think his presumed contradiction is only illusory. “Ours is a God of love and infinite benevolence, and if you persist in choosing a life apart from Him, in time it will come to feel like hell, because you’ve chosen to turn your back on love and infinite benevolence, and the logic espoused in this book dictates you cannot have that which you actively succeed in choosing against.”
Friday 20 May 2016
On a Lighter Note...
It's been a heavy day for me. I spent too much time reading online about what's wrong in the country at large, and talking on the phone about what's wrong a little closer to home. And all my potential blog topics for today seemed so serious. So I'll share something happy.
I think fetal development is fascinating, so I paid 69 cents for a magazine called "As Your Baby Grows" at the thrift store this winter. The cover says its from the publishers of American Baby, which sounds like a movie but is apparently a branch of Parents magazine. It's written in second person (maybe I should have guessed that from the title) but I'm going to change quotes so they don't all say "your baby" and "you" and stuff.
I'm skipping the first month, probably because I don't super like the word "sperm." In fourth grade, I cried when my group was assigned to research the sperm whale, partly for embarrassment at having to be publicly associated with sperm, partly because I was also embarrassed at the thought of having to explain why I didn't want to be in that group. My teacher was cool about it and let me switch discreetly, but I'm pretty sure I was then in the humpback group, a cold comfort. Whatever happened to orcas? Anyway, all the genetics of a baby are already determined at the moment of conception, stuff like eye color and sex. Because of genetic material contained in the egg and a little thing I will leave unnamed.
The second month "is probably the most important for a baby's growth. At the beginning of the month... each cell has begun to perform a distinct and indispensable role. Despite all the advances in biology and genetics, no one can explain how every cell in the embryo knows what to do and what part of the body to become; that remains one of the many mysteries of how human life develops." That is SO COOL! And they don't even have email or Slack or Facebook or texting. I've worked at places where the intelligent adult humans don't all know what to do or understand their role in the organization, despite chains of command, job descriptions, you name it... and these are incredibly tiny little specks that just start going about their crazy-specific business without having been commanded (except... well, I think God is directing this process ;)
"By the time the mother is six weeks pregnant, the head end of the embryo already looks different from the bottom, and a pair of bumps near either end mark the beginnings of arms and legs... In the fifth or sixth week, two parts of the heart develop separately, then fuse to form a minuscule organ that begins to beat rapidly--almost twice as fast as the mother's." A beating heart implies that there's blood. I think I had realized that "At no time during pregnancy does the mother's blood mix with the baby's." Reading the description of how that affects nutrient exchange, etc. reminds me of putting healthy boundaries in place even from a young age. The little one is still always its own person, not an extension of the mother. Even at the age of -7 months! If only codependent mothers would remember that for the next 18 years (just kidding! maybe).
And there are already eyes forming in the second month! It says, "although the lids will close next month, a baby in the womb can still discern light." Wow. "By the end of the second month, the embryo looks more familiar. The tiny buds that hinted at arms and legs now show little weblike ridges where the fingers and toes will be... Most of the baby's internal organs--lungs, liver, kidneys, and intestines--are in place, but they are not yet fully formed and they do not yet function fully."
I am so amazed at creation and especially the way this process happens silently and in the dark and yet each little part somehow knows its role in the dance. How is it that the dividing cells of an embryo form a tighter and more cohesive task force than a collection of intentional, educated adults? I feel like there's something deep I should learn from that fact, but for now I'll just admire it.
I think fetal development is fascinating, so I paid 69 cents for a magazine called "As Your Baby Grows" at the thrift store this winter. The cover says its from the publishers of American Baby, which sounds like a movie but is apparently a branch of Parents magazine. It's written in second person (maybe I should have guessed that from the title) but I'm going to change quotes so they don't all say "your baby" and "you" and stuff.
I'm skipping the first month, probably because I don't super like the word "sperm." In fourth grade, I cried when my group was assigned to research the sperm whale, partly for embarrassment at having to be publicly associated with sperm, partly because I was also embarrassed at the thought of having to explain why I didn't want to be in that group. My teacher was cool about it and let me switch discreetly, but I'm pretty sure I was then in the humpback group, a cold comfort. Whatever happened to orcas? Anyway, all the genetics of a baby are already determined at the moment of conception, stuff like eye color and sex. Because of genetic material contained in the egg and a little thing I will leave unnamed.
The second month "is probably the most important for a baby's growth. At the beginning of the month... each cell has begun to perform a distinct and indispensable role. Despite all the advances in biology and genetics, no one can explain how every cell in the embryo knows what to do and what part of the body to become; that remains one of the many mysteries of how human life develops." That is SO COOL! And they don't even have email or Slack or Facebook or texting. I've worked at places where the intelligent adult humans don't all know what to do or understand their role in the organization, despite chains of command, job descriptions, you name it... and these are incredibly tiny little specks that just start going about their crazy-specific business without having been commanded (except... well, I think God is directing this process ;)
"By the time the mother is six weeks pregnant, the head end of the embryo already looks different from the bottom, and a pair of bumps near either end mark the beginnings of arms and legs... In the fifth or sixth week, two parts of the heart develop separately, then fuse to form a minuscule organ that begins to beat rapidly--almost twice as fast as the mother's." A beating heart implies that there's blood. I think I had realized that "At no time during pregnancy does the mother's blood mix with the baby's." Reading the description of how that affects nutrient exchange, etc. reminds me of putting healthy boundaries in place even from a young age. The little one is still always its own person, not an extension of the mother. Even at the age of -7 months! If only codependent mothers would remember that for the next 18 years (just kidding! maybe).
And there are already eyes forming in the second month! It says, "although the lids will close next month, a baby in the womb can still discern light." Wow. "By the end of the second month, the embryo looks more familiar. The tiny buds that hinted at arms and legs now show little weblike ridges where the fingers and toes will be... Most of the baby's internal organs--lungs, liver, kidneys, and intestines--are in place, but they are not yet fully formed and they do not yet function fully."
I am so amazed at creation and especially the way this process happens silently and in the dark and yet each little part somehow knows its role in the dance. How is it that the dividing cells of an embryo form a tighter and more cohesive task force than a collection of intentional, educated adults? I feel like there's something deep I should learn from that fact, but for now I'll just admire it.
Thursday 19 May 2016
Sticking My Hand in a Snake Den: Controversial Facebooking
I guess everyone knows that a reasonable political debate on Facebook is like a unicorn sighting. I see Facebook more as a means of getting better informed and hearing multiple perspectives than an effective mind-changer.
I have commented on controversial issues on Facebook a handful of times in the past year. None has ended satisfyingly, though some have felt useful at some point. When I comment, I'm not picking a fight. I'm not even sharing my "side" on a subject, though I am treated as though I have and I dissented, which is fair since I haven't simply said, "Yeah, totally!" My views (like I would hope most peoples') are way too nuanced for Facebook, which is no place for nuance. Sound bites and oversimplifications win the day there. And often it really is only a day; the great river of new posts rolls ever on.
No, I don't bring my own ideas to the table. There's no point debating conclusions while we can't even agree on premises. My involvement is to address times: 1) the truth is being distorted beyond recognition, or 2) a sensible question or point is blasted as being ridiculous and unworthy of being entertained. I have asked people to at least consider where the other side is coming from instead of rejecting it outright. I would never attempt this in a random comments section, one full of strangers. That would be like, as Proverbs 26:17 puts it, grabbing a stray dog by the ears.* It's not my quarrel. My quarrel, I suppose, is against misinformation and unwarranted ridicule. When the original poster is a friend, someone I'd like to consider somewhat reasonable, and the lies have harmful implications for an important matter, I sometimes can't resist weighing in, hence, my comments.
I weigh in if only for the sake of readers who may believe they learned something from the original post; the idea that what they "learned" is false is so abhorrent to me that it's caused me to take risks that are perhaps foolish. If people are going to hate something, I desperately want it to be for the right reasons. If they have all the facts and conclude differently than me, that's their prerogative, but I can't bear to think that they're being fed a pack of lies and believing they're choosing wisely or rationally. I saw this quote the other day from a book I haven't yet read that accurately captures my concern: “A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.” --Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow. I don't know whether the quote would have an effect on others, but it hits me in the gut and then the tear ducts. We are surrounded by lies and finding the truth is hard work. Do people know this? Do they do that hard work? Or do they assume the truth doesn't matter, doesn't exist, or is equivalent to what they usually hear on a daily basis?
A friend pointed out that people often don't understand their own or the other person's premises, so that's why we have so many zero-sum conversations. I wish people would examine their premises. Here's an example: I once asked a young woman why she supported Planned Parenthood. She replied, "Because I respect women." Full stop. Funny, I respect women, too, and that's the exact reason I'm not a fan of theirs. It wasn't the time nor place (nor relationship, honestly) to go deeper on that particular topic, but it left me thinking that she's imbibed the cultural, broadly repeated, governmentally-sanctioned message that respect for women goes hand-in-hand with PP, without actually considering what respect means or looks like or independently examining how PP does or doesn't live up to the ideal of respect for women, men, children, law enforcement, etc.
My efforts to publicly dig deeper on Facebook are overall super unwelcome. I see glints of civility shining upon the lakes of hostility. Irritatingly, I am often attacked for things I didn't say. What a waste of time. More than once, I've sensed that someone didn't even read what I said, instead spotting a few keywords and launching into their own rote reply. I am concerned that "opponents" see my words and assume I am making things up. I endeavor not to be that irresponsible. I favor statistics, case studies, and informed testimonies. If I didn't honestly believe in the validity of what I was saying, based on evidence, I would consider it useless, even foolish, to dare to speak up at all, because I'd be afraid of being found out and invalidated. Sometimes it's not a matter of sharing truths I've learned, but simply of posing a question. A common reaction to valid questions in these settings is to treat them as invalid so as to say, "I'm not going to dignify that with a response." This tactic short-circuits learning and dialogue on both sides.
I've always wanted so much for people to not think I'm an idiot, but apparently I've finally found something for which I'm willing to stick my neck out. I'm not even at the phase of trying to defend Biblical truth or anything close to that, just basic truths about facts and logic and differing perspectives that will allow us to occupy the same space for long enough to actually interact instead of just screaming past one another at the height of emotion and disgust, with no common ground. The truth doesn't need to fear honest questions or true statistics, so I don't need to fear those things. If I'm honest and sincere with questions and answers, maybe I'll see a place I was wrong and get closer to the actual truth. The truth doesn't need to bully or cave to popular opinion. If I beat someone down with excellently-worded rebuttals, that doesn't make me more right. If I am the only person to say "X" in a 200-comment thread of people insisting, "Y," and patting each other on the back, that doesn't make me more wrong. The truth is unwelcome when conclusions have already been drawn, since truth has consequences and if it causes a chink in the armor of certainty, it could ruin it all. Integrity is a dangerous thing, because it means you can't promise unconditional loyalty to a group, person, or idea, however lucrative or popular.
And it's dangerous for me personally because I know what waits for me on the other side of desperately trying to inject some balance into ridicule. I pay a high emotional cost for my involvement. I know I'm not the only person to experience this, and I can't measure it against anyone else (what would be the unit of measurement?) but it's very high for me. My life is pleasant enough now that these comment exchanges have been some of the most physically and emotionally unpleasant things I have experienced all year. Almost each time, I have physically trembled after posting, then again after reading harsh replies, and it can take a day to calm back down all the way. I hate having secrets or mental barriers or resistance in my mind; I think it's unhealthy as a source of constant stress. So when I intentionally avoid Facebook for a time to avoid pain aka notifications, this avoidance is ugly to me. Anxiety flares up and I have to remind myself that even though words can have the physical effect of someone reaching through my screen and throttling me, they cannot touch me, they don't know where I live, and I can decide how much I accept their anger, at least in theory.
To say commenting never, ever works is a huge oversimplification, I know. It works sometimes. Here and there, good things happen. Here and there, a commenter says I brought something new to their attention. Of course, there's always the quiet hope that an anonymous reader also got something out of it. I can't say whether it's all worth the cost I pay for it; I'd have no way to measure that. I don't even know if it's worth it for me. I suppose it must be; maybe I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I never even tried. From now on, whatever else happens, I'll always be able to say I tried. But I may find that I stick to blogging.
* Proverbs 26:17 (NIV) Like one who grabs a stray dog by the ears is someone who rushes into a quarrel not their own.
I have commented on controversial issues on Facebook a handful of times in the past year. None has ended satisfyingly, though some have felt useful at some point. When I comment, I'm not picking a fight. I'm not even sharing my "side" on a subject, though I am treated as though I have and I dissented, which is fair since I haven't simply said, "Yeah, totally!" My views (like I would hope most peoples') are way too nuanced for Facebook, which is no place for nuance. Sound bites and oversimplifications win the day there. And often it really is only a day; the great river of new posts rolls ever on.
No, I don't bring my own ideas to the table. There's no point debating conclusions while we can't even agree on premises. My involvement is to address times: 1) the truth is being distorted beyond recognition, or 2) a sensible question or point is blasted as being ridiculous and unworthy of being entertained. I have asked people to at least consider where the other side is coming from instead of rejecting it outright. I would never attempt this in a random comments section, one full of strangers. That would be like, as Proverbs 26:17 puts it, grabbing a stray dog by the ears.* It's not my quarrel. My quarrel, I suppose, is against misinformation and unwarranted ridicule. When the original poster is a friend, someone I'd like to consider somewhat reasonable, and the lies have harmful implications for an important matter, I sometimes can't resist weighing in, hence, my comments.
I weigh in if only for the sake of readers who may believe they learned something from the original post; the idea that what they "learned" is false is so abhorrent to me that it's caused me to take risks that are perhaps foolish. If people are going to hate something, I desperately want it to be for the right reasons. If they have all the facts and conclude differently than me, that's their prerogative, but I can't bear to think that they're being fed a pack of lies and believing they're choosing wisely or rationally. I saw this quote the other day from a book I haven't yet read that accurately captures my concern: “A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.” --Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow. I don't know whether the quote would have an effect on others, but it hits me in the gut and then the tear ducts. We are surrounded by lies and finding the truth is hard work. Do people know this? Do they do that hard work? Or do they assume the truth doesn't matter, doesn't exist, or is equivalent to what they usually hear on a daily basis?
A friend pointed out that people often don't understand their own or the other person's premises, so that's why we have so many zero-sum conversations. I wish people would examine their premises. Here's an example: I once asked a young woman why she supported Planned Parenthood. She replied, "Because I respect women." Full stop. Funny, I respect women, too, and that's the exact reason I'm not a fan of theirs. It wasn't the time nor place (nor relationship, honestly) to go deeper on that particular topic, but it left me thinking that she's imbibed the cultural, broadly repeated, governmentally-sanctioned message that respect for women goes hand-in-hand with PP, without actually considering what respect means or looks like or independently examining how PP does or doesn't live up to the ideal of respect for women, men, children, law enforcement, etc.
My efforts to publicly dig deeper on Facebook are overall super unwelcome. I see glints of civility shining upon the lakes of hostility. Irritatingly, I am often attacked for things I didn't say. What a waste of time. More than once, I've sensed that someone didn't even read what I said, instead spotting a few keywords and launching into their own rote reply. I am concerned that "opponents" see my words and assume I am making things up. I endeavor not to be that irresponsible. I favor statistics, case studies, and informed testimonies. If I didn't honestly believe in the validity of what I was saying, based on evidence, I would consider it useless, even foolish, to dare to speak up at all, because I'd be afraid of being found out and invalidated. Sometimes it's not a matter of sharing truths I've learned, but simply of posing a question. A common reaction to valid questions in these settings is to treat them as invalid so as to say, "I'm not going to dignify that with a response." This tactic short-circuits learning and dialogue on both sides.
I've always wanted so much for people to not think I'm an idiot, but apparently I've finally found something for which I'm willing to stick my neck out. I'm not even at the phase of trying to defend Biblical truth or anything close to that, just basic truths about facts and logic and differing perspectives that will allow us to occupy the same space for long enough to actually interact instead of just screaming past one another at the height of emotion and disgust, with no common ground. The truth doesn't need to fear honest questions or true statistics, so I don't need to fear those things. If I'm honest and sincere with questions and answers, maybe I'll see a place I was wrong and get closer to the actual truth. The truth doesn't need to bully or cave to popular opinion. If I beat someone down with excellently-worded rebuttals, that doesn't make me more right. If I am the only person to say "X" in a 200-comment thread of people insisting, "Y," and patting each other on the back, that doesn't make me more wrong. The truth is unwelcome when conclusions have already been drawn, since truth has consequences and if it causes a chink in the armor of certainty, it could ruin it all. Integrity is a dangerous thing, because it means you can't promise unconditional loyalty to a group, person, or idea, however lucrative or popular.
To say commenting never, ever works is a huge oversimplification, I know. It works sometimes. Here and there, good things happen. Here and there, a commenter says I brought something new to their attention. Of course, there's always the quiet hope that an anonymous reader also got something out of it. I can't say whether it's all worth the cost I pay for it; I'd have no way to measure that. I don't even know if it's worth it for me. I suppose it must be; maybe I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I never even tried. From now on, whatever else happens, I'll always be able to say I tried. But I may find that I stick to blogging.
* Proverbs 26:17 (NIV) Like one who grabs a stray dog by the ears is someone who rushes into a quarrel not their own.
Saturday 14 May 2016
In which I learn about agendas
I've always loved words. One of the most difficult words for me to understand in my life was "agenda." I now wonder if this had to do with the guilelessness of children. There is the primary, straightforward definition of agenda: a list of things to talk about at a meeting. But there's a deeper meaning beneath, kind of like the word "agenda" has its own agenda. (Plus, British people have yet another meaning for the word!)
I define an agenda as someone's underlying purpose or desire, often hidden, something they want so badly they are willing to manipulate to achieve it. My definition is a mixture of the way I've heard it defined and the contexts and connotations I've heard around it.
I checked my definition against a few dictionaries'. Dictionary.com, my go-to word website, let me down here. They list only the plain definition, but their examples of use seem to refer to the secondary definition. I never would've understood the word if I'd relied on this site. The second Merriam Webster definition is closest to my understanding: "a plan or goal that guides someone's behavior and is often kept secret." Oxford dictionaries does define it as, "the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group," but this definition doesn't get its own number; it's the third bullet point under 1. a list of items to be discussed at a formal meeting. I was amused; apparently, the underlying purpose (agenda) of the word "agenda" is itself slippery, omitted or buried in bullet points.
The word "agenda" has come to my mind often as I seek to understand life ("Why on earth would someone act like that? What is the benefit of this new law? Why would the characters on this TV show behave in such an unrealistic manner that does not serve to advance the plot?") and discover that everyone really does have an agenda, often an agenda to influence others. It can be hard to live and let live. I often think I know what's best for others, yet get annoyed when they think they know what's best for me. Growing up, I believed the government was a benevolent organization with everyone's best interests in mind and no reason to mislead anyone. There's that childlike guilelessness, right? Maybe that's the ideal of a government, but then actual humans step into power with their flaws and personal motivations and ability to be swayed and it's nothing more than a dream.
All humans, at some point, have needs and wants that we can fill or leave empty and have agendas to meet those wants or needs. It's a free and enlightened person who has been able to let go of the agendas and embrace life as it is. We see this in obvious places - people seek money or power and need our paycheck or our vote and do or say what they think they need to to get it from us. In more subtle places, too: "informational" websites that seek to present opinion as fact, or TV shows that tell irresponsibly unrealistic stories (random example: the actors on Grey's Anatomy have admitted that the show's portrayal of sex is ridiculously unrealistic; as adults, this may not be as big of a deal, but when kids or teenagers see lies convincingly presented as truth, especially with regards to casual sex, it can harm them profoundly) either to score higher ratings or promote a certain worldview. Even familial relations are not free of agendas: a parent may want their child to make them proud in front of their friends.
I submit that God is the only person who doesn't have an agenda. Some have the exact opposite understanding, thinking He has an agenda for everyone and is the ultimate control freak. This is clearly not the case: if a benevolent omnipotent being insisted on total control of everything all the time, we wouldn't see any rape, abuse, hunger, or poverty. Because God allows people to make their own choices, for better or for worse, the ugliness in human hearts and choices is revealed and we find ourselves in a broken world. Yet if we were micromanaged at the behavior level, love could not exist, either.
God is 100% exactly who He is, 100% of the time, with no apologies. He treats us the way He does because He wants to and never because He has to. His endless, boundless love is completely a function of His character, uninfluenced by outside pressures. God is free from the need or even the desire to impress others. He doesn't need anything else from us either, so there is no way we can manipulate Him into anything or make Him feel differently towards us. Because He can handle the brunt of our choices, we are truly free. Again, this is evidenced by the very existence of free will. For God to mandate how free will should be exercised is a contradiction of terms. Of course He wants us to love Him, and love others, but clearly He doesn't make us. He knows that love cannot be forced, only chosen or rejected. He, who actually knows what's best for us, is one of the only people to not get frustrated or withhold love when we make poor decisions.
On the other hand, I think the enemy of our souls has tons of agendas for us. There are myriad ways we can end up miserable, broken, and alone, and to the enemy any one of them will do. Manipulation and lies are satan's main tools, and unfortunately I think he profits a lot by piggybacking off the agendas of misguided humans and organizations. It can really stress me out to think about this.
That is why I love to run to God as a baseline in a world crammed with pushing and pulling in every direction. I have great friends and I don't usually feel bowled-over by their agendas. But as soon as I go on Facebook or read articles online or watch TV or hear the nation's news through any medium I feel like there is so much that people want me to believe and endorse or act on, and it gets overwhelming fast. I am sure the truth is buried beneath this clamor, sure that no one's agenda aligns with it exactly, not even my own, though it's as close as I've been able to make it. For that matter, I am sure there is truth, which is sometimes treated like an arrogant statement, but that's a post for another time.
I define an agenda as someone's underlying purpose or desire, often hidden, something they want so badly they are willing to manipulate to achieve it. My definition is a mixture of the way I've heard it defined and the contexts and connotations I've heard around it.
I checked my definition against a few dictionaries'. Dictionary.com, my go-to word website, let me down here. They list only the plain definition, but their examples of use seem to refer to the secondary definition. I never would've understood the word if I'd relied on this site. The second Merriam Webster definition is closest to my understanding: "a plan or goal that guides someone's behavior and is often kept secret." Oxford dictionaries does define it as, "the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group," but this definition doesn't get its own number; it's the third bullet point under 1. a list of items to be discussed at a formal meeting. I was amused; apparently, the underlying purpose (agenda) of the word "agenda" is itself slippery, omitted or buried in bullet points.
The word "agenda" has come to my mind often as I seek to understand life ("Why on earth would someone act like that? What is the benefit of this new law? Why would the characters on this TV show behave in such an unrealistic manner that does not serve to advance the plot?") and discover that everyone really does have an agenda, often an agenda to influence others. It can be hard to live and let live. I often think I know what's best for others, yet get annoyed when they think they know what's best for me. Growing up, I believed the government was a benevolent organization with everyone's best interests in mind and no reason to mislead anyone. There's that childlike guilelessness, right? Maybe that's the ideal of a government, but then actual humans step into power with their flaws and personal motivations and ability to be swayed and it's nothing more than a dream.
All humans, at some point, have needs and wants that we can fill or leave empty and have agendas to meet those wants or needs. It's a free and enlightened person who has been able to let go of the agendas and embrace life as it is. We see this in obvious places - people seek money or power and need our paycheck or our vote and do or say what they think they need to to get it from us. In more subtle places, too: "informational" websites that seek to present opinion as fact, or TV shows that tell irresponsibly unrealistic stories (random example: the actors on Grey's Anatomy have admitted that the show's portrayal of sex is ridiculously unrealistic; as adults, this may not be as big of a deal, but when kids or teenagers see lies convincingly presented as truth, especially with regards to casual sex, it can harm them profoundly) either to score higher ratings or promote a certain worldview. Even familial relations are not free of agendas: a parent may want their child to make them proud in front of their friends.
I submit that God is the only person who doesn't have an agenda. Some have the exact opposite understanding, thinking He has an agenda for everyone and is the ultimate control freak. This is clearly not the case: if a benevolent omnipotent being insisted on total control of everything all the time, we wouldn't see any rape, abuse, hunger, or poverty. Because God allows people to make their own choices, for better or for worse, the ugliness in human hearts and choices is revealed and we find ourselves in a broken world. Yet if we were micromanaged at the behavior level, love could not exist, either.
God is 100% exactly who He is, 100% of the time, with no apologies. He treats us the way He does because He wants to and never because He has to. His endless, boundless love is completely a function of His character, uninfluenced by outside pressures. God is free from the need or even the desire to impress others. He doesn't need anything else from us either, so there is no way we can manipulate Him into anything or make Him feel differently towards us. Because He can handle the brunt of our choices, we are truly free. Again, this is evidenced by the very existence of free will. For God to mandate how free will should be exercised is a contradiction of terms. Of course He wants us to love Him, and love others, but clearly He doesn't make us. He knows that love cannot be forced, only chosen or rejected. He, who actually knows what's best for us, is one of the only people to not get frustrated or withhold love when we make poor decisions.
On the other hand, I think the enemy of our souls has tons of agendas for us. There are myriad ways we can end up miserable, broken, and alone, and to the enemy any one of them will do. Manipulation and lies are satan's main tools, and unfortunately I think he profits a lot by piggybacking off the agendas of misguided humans and organizations. It can really stress me out to think about this.
That is why I love to run to God as a baseline in a world crammed with pushing and pulling in every direction. I have great friends and I don't usually feel bowled-over by their agendas. But as soon as I go on Facebook or read articles online or watch TV or hear the nation's news through any medium I feel like there is so much that people want me to believe and endorse or act on, and it gets overwhelming fast. I am sure the truth is buried beneath this clamor, sure that no one's agenda aligns with it exactly, not even my own, though it's as close as I've been able to make it. For that matter, I am sure there is truth, which is sometimes treated like an arrogant statement, but that's a post for another time.
Sunday 8 May 2016
Not right now doesn't mean never
Growing up, when I envisioned the road to success, I naively neglected the ingredients of timing and patience. I used to feel crushed under the pressure to be successful, even though I didn't even have a clear picture of what I thought success would look like. I was dead wrong in assuming that I needed to do everything perfectly right out of college. If I had clear goals, I still would have expected that I should achieve them right away or else, having failed, give up on them for something else. I now understand that committing to living well is more important than achieving a specific goal and actually more likely to bring me success. The words, "not right now," had the power to loosen the stranglehold of anxiety. Trusting timing and choosing patience are possible and sometimes even exciting because I believe God is working on my behalf in unseen ways. It's wonderful to no longer bear the weight of the world on my shoulders.
Life makes more sense when I factor timing back in to it. In The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up, Marie Kondo teaches that every item must be assigned a home, a place it belongs, and no true tidying can happen without this. Though material things have their homes in physical locations, relationships, situations, and mindsets may belong in temporal places instead. Life is long as well as deep and wide, so it can hold these sequentially as well as concurrently. A life may be rich and full without having everything good happen at the same time, the whole time.
Sometimes I choose to wait and trust, other times it seems chosen for me by circumstance. Last fall I chose to wait for a roommate and apartment situation that felt right and exciting. I worked for it appropriately, but not overtime (by making connections and entering discussion with potential housemates), leaving space for God. I passed over a few options that didn't have the right "vibe." I did get a roommate and apartment, and though the situation has been anything but what I expected, one of my top priorities was cost and that has worked out perfectly well. This past winter I chose to wait for a job. Of course I submitted applications, but not hundreds of them and I didn't panic and just apply anywhere and rush into a poor fit. I did my part, preparing and praying, then waited. I love my job and am so grateful I was able to choose patience, because it was about two months between my application and starting work.
I have often seen God do the heavy lifting in situations when I trust Him. Several of these have happened since I memorized the verse, "The Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still" (Exodus 14:14). Prework may be needed, but time/God does the real work. You can't just catch up real quick at the end, having done no preparation, but if you act wisely at the right time, you don't have to be constantly working as you wait. When workarounds to waiting are possible, like baking avocados to force-ripen them, they tend to have side consequences, like the avocados being kind of gross.
I think growing plants/crops are the best example of having no choice but to wait and trust. You plant seeds, and you water them, but you're not making anything grow by your effort, even though without your effort it wouldn't grow, either. A more personal example is my writing process. My words and brain need time to just sit apart once I've written and before I'm ready to go back and revise. I've heard making sun butter fits into this category, but I haven't yet been successful at making it creamy and buttery so I can't confirm that giving it time to release its oils is indeed the way to make it good. Investing money also requires early or well-timed action, but not daily work.
Then there are the things for which I did not realize I was waiting at the time. Over a long time, intentionally but without a plan or schedule, I learned to cook in ways that work well for me. Because I was willing to wait rather than rush, I received a ton of free stuff for my apartment, including mattresses (from trusted friends, haha), lamps, plates, silverware, glasses, furniture, etc. More than I would have dared to expect. Budgeting has also come to me slowly over the years. Finding rhythms for cleaning, decluttering, and writing are still in process (I do these things, but not in a set pattern), but I've learned to trust that they will eventually get here and I don't have to make myself crazy trying to rush it.
A last example: gradually, over several years, I became interested in the Presidential election. What didn't cause this was pressure or comments/lectures about responsibility and citizenship. The few of those I experienced made me feel vaguely guilty. No, my interest simply grew as I became a young adult making her way in the world, hearing more real-life stories and learning first-hand about health care. I never felt well-informed enough to vote before. It's not that I'm much, much better informed now; I've simply accepted that not everything I wish to know can be known. I will probably not know any of the candidates personally. There's no iron-clad way to predict their behavior. But the internet can help me match candidates with their stances. Ironically, accepting what I cannot control has released me to do what I can do without feeling suffocated. (Though I have to point out that this timing of my first actively-interested election feels like a cruel joke in light of the Presidential voting options we are likely to have available come November!)
Life makes more sense when I factor timing back in to it. In The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up, Marie Kondo teaches that every item must be assigned a home, a place it belongs, and no true tidying can happen without this. Though material things have their homes in physical locations, relationships, situations, and mindsets may belong in temporal places instead. Life is long as well as deep and wide, so it can hold these sequentially as well as concurrently. A life may be rich and full without having everything good happen at the same time, the whole time.
Sometimes I choose to wait and trust, other times it seems chosen for me by circumstance. Last fall I chose to wait for a roommate and apartment situation that felt right and exciting. I worked for it appropriately, but not overtime (by making connections and entering discussion with potential housemates), leaving space for God. I passed over a few options that didn't have the right "vibe." I did get a roommate and apartment, and though the situation has been anything but what I expected, one of my top priorities was cost and that has worked out perfectly well. This past winter I chose to wait for a job. Of course I submitted applications, but not hundreds of them and I didn't panic and just apply anywhere and rush into a poor fit. I did my part, preparing and praying, then waited. I love my job and am so grateful I was able to choose patience, because it was about two months between my application and starting work.
I have often seen God do the heavy lifting in situations when I trust Him. Several of these have happened since I memorized the verse, "The Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still" (Exodus 14:14). Prework may be needed, but time/God does the real work. You can't just catch up real quick at the end, having done no preparation, but if you act wisely at the right time, you don't have to be constantly working as you wait. When workarounds to waiting are possible, like baking avocados to force-ripen them, they tend to have side consequences, like the avocados being kind of gross.
I think growing plants/crops are the best example of having no choice but to wait and trust. You plant seeds, and you water them, but you're not making anything grow by your effort, even though without your effort it wouldn't grow, either. A more personal example is my writing process. My words and brain need time to just sit apart once I've written and before I'm ready to go back and revise. I've heard making sun butter fits into this category, but I haven't yet been successful at making it creamy and buttery so I can't confirm that giving it time to release its oils is indeed the way to make it good. Investing money also requires early or well-timed action, but not daily work.
Then there are the things for which I did not realize I was waiting at the time. Over a long time, intentionally but without a plan or schedule, I learned to cook in ways that work well for me. Because I was willing to wait rather than rush, I received a ton of free stuff for my apartment, including mattresses (from trusted friends, haha), lamps, plates, silverware, glasses, furniture, etc. More than I would have dared to expect. Budgeting has also come to me slowly over the years. Finding rhythms for cleaning, decluttering, and writing are still in process (I do these things, but not in a set pattern), but I've learned to trust that they will eventually get here and I don't have to make myself crazy trying to rush it.
A last example: gradually, over several years, I became interested in the Presidential election. What didn't cause this was pressure or comments/lectures about responsibility and citizenship. The few of those I experienced made me feel vaguely guilty. No, my interest simply grew as I became a young adult making her way in the world, hearing more real-life stories and learning first-hand about health care. I never felt well-informed enough to vote before. It's not that I'm much, much better informed now; I've simply accepted that not everything I wish to know can be known. I will probably not know any of the candidates personally. There's no iron-clad way to predict their behavior. But the internet can help me match candidates with their stances. Ironically, accepting what I cannot control has released me to do what I can do without feeling suffocated. (Though I have to point out that this timing of my first actively-interested election feels like a cruel joke in light of the Presidential voting options we are likely to have available come November!)
Thursday 5 May 2016
"I'll Have the Venti Caramel Waffle Cone Frappuccino"
Metaphor is a masterful way to convey big concepts. Jesus taught in parables, and I totally get it. They access the mind from a side door, bypassing defenses and allowing you to see clearly without the distraction of your biases. I especially love when you can replace just one word or phrase in a text to illustrate a point. It can also make for some killer jokes. Have you heard about Dihydrogen Monoxide? Here's a great fact website about it. I wish I had thought of this myself.
A friend once told me that if coffee were just now discovered instead of having been discovered centuries ago, it would be regulated for its effects as a highly addictive stimulant. That might be taking it a bit far, but then again, maybe not. I've known people to jones daily for coffee, to need it daily as soon as they wake up and maybe a few more, incapable of focusing on anything or being pleasant or enjoying life until they get some of it, even if they're on vacation. They're perfectly willing to overpay for it if needed. If I told you all that without using the word "coffee," wouldn't you think my friend might have a problem?
Here's another word replacement. I believe "liberal"and "conservative" social thought have a lot more in common than it would seem. That differences are just a matter of how, exactly, to achieve the same transcendental ends both groups seek, ends like justice, peace, equality, freedom, and human dignity. An example: Who would not be moved by the plight of this disadvantaged group of humans: they're often demonized, though innocent; largely speaking, society does not respect, protect, or love them, much less openly embrace them; they're in pain, though that pain is rarely made public and opponents attempt to minimize it; the laws of the land don't really reflect their interests and often actively impede their ability to live freely; they're often misunderstood or overlooked entirely; someone else makes their biggest choices for them, choices with which they might not agree; the situation is vital, desperate, time-sensitive and deeply personal for each of them. This group is crying out for champions from every demographic. They really need Americans to lay aside their political chatter and attempts to please everyone or stay popular and actually help them out right now instead of just talking. Who did you think of? Unfortunately, I'm sure many groups could fit this bill. What if I told you this was about the abortion issue? Now who would you think of? I believe pro-abortion folks would say this is talking about the mothers (though they'd probably prefer a term like women seeking abortion) and pro-lifers would say this is clearly referring to the unborn (fetuses, babies, whatever you choose... tiny humans, at any rate). Hopefully, both "liberals" and "conservatives" operate from a place of compassion and a real desire to help make the world a better place to live. Just swap out a few words to find how much we have in common, even on one of the great struggles (I wish I could call it a dialogue but I haven't seen much of that) of our time.
We have such a different perspective on history now that it's over. Watch some Mad Men (set in the 1960's) and you'll see lots of unbelievable things: people smoking on airplanes, kids wrestling in the backseat of a moving car - mom yells at them for that but doesn't even mention their unworn, untouched seatbelts, a family dumping trash from their picnic over the edge of a cliff without a second thought, even a little girl with a giant clear plastic dry-cleaning bag over her head that covers almost her whole body, whose mother scolds her for displacing the clothes from the bag, without adding anything like, "OMG take that off, you'll suffocate!"
I wondered, and I know this is not an original thought to me, but I wondered if sometime in the future, refined sugar will be treated more like tobacco and we'll be shocked as a society that people would ever give it to their children. People will watch movies set in the past and laugh, baffled, at the rampant sugar consumption the way we do now about the seatbeltlessness in the 60's. "Really? That's a treat they gave all the kiddos at birthday parties? Don't they know? Guess back then, things were just different and they didn't have the science we have now." Tobacco was marketed to children until 1964, when advertising it to youth was banned, partly because it was finally beginning to be seen as a public health crisis.
Speaking of public health crises, with more than 1 in 3 U.S. adults obese and more than 2 in 3 overweight, plus a 17% obesity rate for children (with 1 in 3 overweight), it seems high time to label refined sugar products with the appropriate equivalent of those "SMOKING KILLS" labels that are required on cigarettes. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) website, "the estimated annual cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars; the medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight." I know obesity's a multifaceted issue, but sugar's not helping it. The litany of health, dental, and even emotional/mental/behavioral problems that chronic refined sugar consumption causes kids and adults can hardly be overstated in light of the fact that it has no benefits besides a fleeting moment of pleasure. Its addictive properties mimic heroin or cocaine, using the same brain pathways and the law of diminishing return (at some point, you need more and more to get the same effect as before).
I thought of the "danger" labels because one recent day at work I chose a healthy, whole-foods lunch and had a nice amount of energy during the afternoon as a result (okay, it took a few days of eating that way; there's lag time). Later in the day, I had some incredibly delicious cheesecake (mmm) provided free in the breakroom made with sugar and flour and noticed a corresponding energy slump a bit later. I thought, "drug and alcohol use are prohibited at work partly because they tend to negatively affect work performance... I know if I'd eaten a sugary, white-flour lunch I would be massively dragging right now... significantly less alert and motivated... with lowered performance. Doesn't it follow that eating this way should also be discouraged in a work setting?" I realize how far-fetched this sounds, but it probably sounded crazy to suggest the tobacco warnings, back in the day. "Aw, let people make their own choices... don't shame them." Or plastic bags over kids' heads. You know, harmless fun. Who would question that?
A friend once told me that if coffee were just now discovered instead of having been discovered centuries ago, it would be regulated for its effects as a highly addictive stimulant. That might be taking it a bit far, but then again, maybe not. I've known people to jones daily for coffee, to need it daily as soon as they wake up and maybe a few more, incapable of focusing on anything or being pleasant or enjoying life until they get some of it, even if they're on vacation. They're perfectly willing to overpay for it if needed. If I told you all that without using the word "coffee," wouldn't you think my friend might have a problem?
Here's another word replacement. I believe "liberal"and "conservative" social thought have a lot more in common than it would seem. That differences are just a matter of how, exactly, to achieve the same transcendental ends both groups seek, ends like justice, peace, equality, freedom, and human dignity. An example: Who would not be moved by the plight of this disadvantaged group of humans: they're often demonized, though innocent; largely speaking, society does not respect, protect, or love them, much less openly embrace them; they're in pain, though that pain is rarely made public and opponents attempt to minimize it; the laws of the land don't really reflect their interests and often actively impede their ability to live freely; they're often misunderstood or overlooked entirely; someone else makes their biggest choices for them, choices with which they might not agree; the situation is vital, desperate, time-sensitive and deeply personal for each of them. This group is crying out for champions from every demographic. They really need Americans to lay aside their political chatter and attempts to please everyone or stay popular and actually help them out right now instead of just talking. Who did you think of? Unfortunately, I'm sure many groups could fit this bill. What if I told you this was about the abortion issue? Now who would you think of? I believe pro-abortion folks would say this is talking about the mothers (though they'd probably prefer a term like women seeking abortion) and pro-lifers would say this is clearly referring to the unborn (fetuses, babies, whatever you choose... tiny humans, at any rate). Hopefully, both "liberals" and "conservatives" operate from a place of compassion and a real desire to help make the world a better place to live. Just swap out a few words to find how much we have in common, even on one of the great struggles (I wish I could call it a dialogue but I haven't seen much of that) of our time.
We have such a different perspective on history now that it's over. Watch some Mad Men (set in the 1960's) and you'll see lots of unbelievable things: people smoking on airplanes, kids wrestling in the backseat of a moving car - mom yells at them for that but doesn't even mention their unworn, untouched seatbelts, a family dumping trash from their picnic over the edge of a cliff without a second thought, even a little girl with a giant clear plastic dry-cleaning bag over her head that covers almost her whole body, whose mother scolds her for displacing the clothes from the bag, without adding anything like, "OMG take that off, you'll suffocate!"
I wondered, and I know this is not an original thought to me, but I wondered if sometime in the future, refined sugar will be treated more like tobacco and we'll be shocked as a society that people would ever give it to their children. People will watch movies set in the past and laugh, baffled, at the rampant sugar consumption the way we do now about the seatbeltlessness in the 60's. "Really? That's a treat they gave all the kiddos at birthday parties? Don't they know? Guess back then, things were just different and they didn't have the science we have now." Tobacco was marketed to children until 1964, when advertising it to youth was banned, partly because it was finally beginning to be seen as a public health crisis.
Speaking of public health crises, with more than 1 in 3 U.S. adults obese and more than 2 in 3 overweight, plus a 17% obesity rate for children (with 1 in 3 overweight), it seems high time to label refined sugar products with the appropriate equivalent of those "SMOKING KILLS" labels that are required on cigarettes. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) website, "the estimated annual cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars; the medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight." I know obesity's a multifaceted issue, but sugar's not helping it. The litany of health, dental, and even emotional/mental/behavioral problems that chronic refined sugar consumption causes kids and adults can hardly be overstated in light of the fact that it has no benefits besides a fleeting moment of pleasure. Its addictive properties mimic heroin or cocaine, using the same brain pathways and the law of diminishing return (at some point, you need more and more to get the same effect as before).
I thought of the "danger" labels because one recent day at work I chose a healthy, whole-foods lunch and had a nice amount of energy during the afternoon as a result (okay, it took a few days of eating that way; there's lag time). Later in the day, I had some incredibly delicious cheesecake (mmm) provided free in the breakroom made with sugar and flour and noticed a corresponding energy slump a bit later. I thought, "drug and alcohol use are prohibited at work partly because they tend to negatively affect work performance... I know if I'd eaten a sugary, white-flour lunch I would be massively dragging right now... significantly less alert and motivated... with lowered performance. Doesn't it follow that eating this way should also be discouraged in a work setting?" I realize how far-fetched this sounds, but it probably sounded crazy to suggest the tobacco warnings, back in the day. "Aw, let people make their own choices... don't shame them." Or plastic bags over kids' heads. You know, harmless fun. Who would question that?
Sunday 1 May 2016
Bright-Line Soda Fountains
Soda fountains probably look like this to most people:
Here is what a soda fountain looks like to me:
Maybe "poison" is too strong. Then again, most soft drinks make you weaker and sicker, with no health benefits; I'm not sure of a better word. Maybe a big "X" would have sufficed. Either way, I am not a soda drinker, largely for health reasons. When I realized that what I see when I look at a soda fountain is not what others see, I was shocked and started wondering about the distortions other people have on the world. I used to just assume we all saw the same things, and now I'm convinced we don't.
Though we differ, everyone has shorthands for maneuvering through the world, decisions made in advance to save time and energy. The legal term for one of these is "bright-line," which Merriam-Webster defines as, "providing an unambiguous criterion or guideline." They can be tremendously useful. Good habits can do a lot to make life easier and better. Routines are good for mental health and general productivity. In his Psychology: Briefer Course, William James writes, "There is no more miserable human being than one in whom nothing is habitual but indecision, and for whom the lighting of every cigar, the drinking of every cup, the time of rising and going to bed every day, and the beginning of every bit of work, are subjects of express volitional deliberation. Full half of the time of such a man goes to the deciding, or regretting, of matters which ought to be so ingrained in him as practically not to exist for his consciousness at all."
When I hear, "as practically not to exist for his consciousness at all," I think of advertisements. For some reason, marketers count on the fact that you'll pay attention to their ad. If you don't read it, it doesn't matter how genius-inspired the wording or picture is. So common is ignoring ads that the term "banner blindness" sprang up to describe a person's tendency to completely ignore anything that looks like an advertisement while online. Sometimes viewers even skip over a legitimate part of a website because its design looks too much like an ad. I think going blind to ads is a fabulous practice. Paying attention to advertisements is inviting yourself to feel discontented. Plus, I can't imagine the extra bother I'd have in my life if every time, say, Time Warner mailed me something, I had to sit down and deliberate the pros and cons of having cable. It makes me glad we had the cables ripped out of the apartment when we moved in. Decision: made. It's annoying enough to transport the mailers from the mailbox to the recycle bin; I don't need the hassle of reading them every week.
I like making guidelines for myself to save the time and energy spent deliberating. I have been through several iterations of this with food. "Categorically, I do not purchase baked goods at a gas station," is an old, reliable one. I'm happy with where I've landed, not that I always follow through. My eating guidelines can go out the window when free cheesecake is involved.
Of course, guidelines are always only as good as the legitimacy of the beliefs they're based on. In a way, it's uncomfortable for me to have changed my mind so many times about food, but on the other hand, I do consider my changes to be improvements. Generally, I want to make sure that my short-cuts are helping me and not hurting me. I don't want to block out a whole viewpoint just because it isn't what I expect to hear or because it's presented in such a way that it doesn't make it past my filter.
Despite its risks, this "categorical" approach has brought a lot of peace and clarity to my life. There are so many things demanding a person's attention nowadays. At any moment, a friend could reach out through texting, Snapchat, email, Facebook, Instagram, or another channel. Then there's the never-ending stream of internet articles. I daily receive more promotional emails than I am able to read, though I fight back by unsubscribing from lists as often as I dare. To keep from feeling overwhelmed, I have to make big decisions about what is important to me. It's essential to be willing to risk missing out on something and not try to "do it all." Only by categorically ruling things out can I have any measure of rest. Determining what matters and letting go of what doesn't is a challenge, but it feels so good to progress. I've found the fewer clothes I own, the more I enjoy the ones I have. It's the same with emails; the fewer I have assaulting my inbox, the better I can engage with what comes in. I've never regretted not reading all the labels on a soda fountain. I have better things to read with my 24 hours in a day.
How do you use habits and mental shortcuts to make your life better?
Here is what a soda fountain looks like to me:
Maybe "poison" is too strong. Then again, most soft drinks make you weaker and sicker, with no health benefits; I'm not sure of a better word. Maybe a big "X" would have sufficed. Either way, I am not a soda drinker, largely for health reasons. When I realized that what I see when I look at a soda fountain is not what others see, I was shocked and started wondering about the distortions other people have on the world. I used to just assume we all saw the same things, and now I'm convinced we don't.
Though we differ, everyone has shorthands for maneuvering through the world, decisions made in advance to save time and energy. The legal term for one of these is "bright-line," which Merriam-Webster defines as, "providing an unambiguous criterion or guideline." They can be tremendously useful. Good habits can do a lot to make life easier and better. Routines are good for mental health and general productivity. In his Psychology: Briefer Course, William James writes, "There is no more miserable human being than one in whom nothing is habitual but indecision, and for whom the lighting of every cigar, the drinking of every cup, the time of rising and going to bed every day, and the beginning of every bit of work, are subjects of express volitional deliberation. Full half of the time of such a man goes to the deciding, or regretting, of matters which ought to be so ingrained in him as practically not to exist for his consciousness at all."
When I hear, "as practically not to exist for his consciousness at all," I think of advertisements. For some reason, marketers count on the fact that you'll pay attention to their ad. If you don't read it, it doesn't matter how genius-inspired the wording or picture is. So common is ignoring ads that the term "banner blindness" sprang up to describe a person's tendency to completely ignore anything that looks like an advertisement while online. Sometimes viewers even skip over a legitimate part of a website because its design looks too much like an ad. I think going blind to ads is a fabulous practice. Paying attention to advertisements is inviting yourself to feel discontented. Plus, I can't imagine the extra bother I'd have in my life if every time, say, Time Warner mailed me something, I had to sit down and deliberate the pros and cons of having cable. It makes me glad we had the cables ripped out of the apartment when we moved in. Decision: made. It's annoying enough to transport the mailers from the mailbox to the recycle bin; I don't need the hassle of reading them every week.
I like making guidelines for myself to save the time and energy spent deliberating. I have been through several iterations of this with food. "Categorically, I do not purchase baked goods at a gas station," is an old, reliable one. I'm happy with where I've landed, not that I always follow through. My eating guidelines can go out the window when free cheesecake is involved.
Of course, guidelines are always only as good as the legitimacy of the beliefs they're based on. In a way, it's uncomfortable for me to have changed my mind so many times about food, but on the other hand, I do consider my changes to be improvements. Generally, I want to make sure that my short-cuts are helping me and not hurting me. I don't want to block out a whole viewpoint just because it isn't what I expect to hear or because it's presented in such a way that it doesn't make it past my filter.
Despite its risks, this "categorical" approach has brought a lot of peace and clarity to my life. There are so many things demanding a person's attention nowadays. At any moment, a friend could reach out through texting, Snapchat, email, Facebook, Instagram, or another channel. Then there's the never-ending stream of internet articles. I daily receive more promotional emails than I am able to read, though I fight back by unsubscribing from lists as often as I dare. To keep from feeling overwhelmed, I have to make big decisions about what is important to me. It's essential to be willing to risk missing out on something and not try to "do it all." Only by categorically ruling things out can I have any measure of rest. Determining what matters and letting go of what doesn't is a challenge, but it feels so good to progress. I've found the fewer clothes I own, the more I enjoy the ones I have. It's the same with emails; the fewer I have assaulting my inbox, the better I can engage with what comes in. I've never regretted not reading all the labels on a soda fountain. I have better things to read with my 24 hours in a day.
How do you use habits and mental shortcuts to make your life better?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)