window of rock+meta-cognition.

So, once upon a time I went to a red-rock canyon, and it was beautiful.

In other news (this is going to be a mind-blurb) how do you think we know anything? How can we know anything beyond what we have experienced with our own minds and bodies? And what we have "experienced" with our minds must necessarily be our individual perception of reality and not ultimate reality itself. I know this question has been asked by millions of people throughout history, but I am still wondering - because, ironically enough, I want my own answer. Maybe the solution is to go off of what works - what fulfills us mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and is materially effective in our lives. Or maybe the answer is to just not worry about the question, and worry instead about all of the actual hard things that are happening in the world, and enjoy the good things that are everywhere. Maybe.

But I believe that there are truths. I don't think it's possible for us to understand entire truths because I think they are infinitely faceted and made up of the trillions of experiences, emotions and moments of life that happen on the planet (and other planets. I need a bigger word than trillion.) And, although I may be wrong, I believe with all my heart that every single one of those facets of reality are connected to other pieces, forming an infinitely expansive and varied but related whole that is the living organism of reality, and tied together by one or a few ultimate truths. Life will go on. I believe that God watches over that organism, but even more I believe that he is a part of it - he extends through every piece of the living whole, because he shares the breath of life that ignites it.

Sometimes Utah's slow reaction time is a good thing.

NPR's recent story "Chlorine Substitutes in Water May Have Risks" is a little upsetting. It would be a lot more upsetting, though, if I lived in one of the many states where water treatment plants have started using Chloramine (Chlorine + ammonia) as primary water disinfectant in response to recent EPA guidelines. Apparently Chlorine (what has been predominantly used in the past) actually produces small levels of carcinogenic byproducts. Cancer is a bad thing, so the EPA recently advocated the use of Chloramine. Good, right? Nope.

In Washington D.C. health officials have discovered that Chloramine not only produces nitrasomes, a carcinogen much more harmful than the after-effects of Chlorine, but fails to prevent lead from leaching into the local water supply. "Unheard-of" lead levels started to appear in D.C. water districts and in D.C. children. Apparently, problems with Chloramine may manifest differently or not at all across the country, depending on the reactions of individual water systems, and many companies will be reticent to make the high-cost switch back to Chlorine. That's a big, fat, expensive question mark.

Whether it's because Utah is slow on the uptake, dislikes the EPA in general or just has really good judgment, we're still using chlorine. Is that all good? According to NPR, "There are still good reasons for many water systems to move away from chlorine...but [Sedlak] says local authorities need to remember that a new disinfectant may bring its own problems." If Utah does decide to make a change, hopefully we'll learn from the mistakes of our neighbors. More importantly, I hope that US citizens will become AWARE of environmental changes in progress and not just react to them after the fact.

read my other blog!

So, I just posted my term paper, called "the fallow garden," on sunbursts 21. I'd really like comments and advice should you feel like wading into the depths of literary analysis.
: )

did I mention that I wrote a term paper and now I'm DONE????!!!
Because I am. Oh, I love Christmas so much...

Happy Holidays!

the song in my head.

Yes, it's cheesy. Get over that and let it make you happy. : )

"Love Only Knows," Josh Groban

I've tried to hold this back so long
and we're always such a good thing when its gone
would it be alright if we just left our heads tonight

take me away from this old game 
of saying we're both too much the same
would it be alright if i just stayed with you tonight
and before I go, will i ever see you again

she said love only knows
love only knows if we'll give into fear and choose life undercover
she said love only knows if its special enough that we'll choose one another
choose each other

You were the secret I loved keep
the name i would only sing in my sleep
would it be alright if we just lose ourselves tonight
and if you let go, will you reach out again
[ From : http://www.elyrics.net/read/j/josh-groban-lyrics/love-only-knows-lyrics.html ]

she said love only knows
love only knows if we'll give into fear and choose life undercover
she said love only knows its special enough that we'll choose one another
we'll choose each other
and i can't breath with out you and i don't, and I can't live without love and I won't... and I won't

Love only knows if we'll give into fear and choose life undercover
she said love only knows if its special enough that we'll choose one another
oh, love only knows how your arms pull me in like the tide pulls me under
she said love only knows just how long we can run before we lose each other

and we need each other
and i can't live without you and I won't

It's (almost) Friday. Except you think it's Tuesday.

Did you know that the Beatles were largely responsible for the downfall of Communism in Russia?
Or that that the Canterbury tales were written in accentual-syllabic meter (specifically, generally iambic pentameter with occasional breaks of trochaic pentameter or an extra syllable)?
Or that Zachary Levi got his start in musicals at the age of 6?
Neither did I. Now I do, though, which makes me wonder...what's the point? Why do we learn? I enjoy it for sure (well, almost always,) but does it actually help me to know what years the Tudors were in power?
Of course you could make the argument that those years are important for understanding the historical context of British literature from that time period. But if that's true, shouldn't I bet trying to memorize every ruler for the past (*insert length of time since writing began) years in every country where there were significant contributions to literature? Which, of course, begs the question "what is significant literature"?

Here's a stab at an answer - note that although I do not claim to have all or any of the answers, I have recently decided that I am still going to try and find answers.

I think that stories make us who we are, and that the most critical information is "that which edifieth"; information that connects to what we already know and lights up the huge space of the universe a little bit more than it its. In this case, any knowledge can be valuable - if knowing that Zachary Levi started his acting career by singing in musicals connects to something you already know and allows to you start understanding a pattern in human existence, go you. You study that celebrity culture. I think the most important patterns (or lack of patterns) of human existence are all related, so here's my "information wanted" sign:

Seeking enlightenment. Will accept any form of assisting knowledge,
including how grasshoppers harmonize their chirping. Prefers
stories.

(I think stories are more often true than "facts" because they aren't trying to be.)

Happy thinking and Thanksgiving, readers.

Love, Jessie

It's Friiiiidayyy

 (The wife of Bath)
Dear reader,

     Today I am grateful for weekends. What a good idea! Who thought them up? Does anyone know, actually, where the weekend originated? 

      *ahem.* I would like to share a line from "The Wife of Bath" (part of the Canterbury Tales) that made me ponder. Describing her relations with her many husbands, the Wife exclaims that "We wommen han, if that I shal not lye

In this matere a queynte fantasye.

Wayte, what thyng we may nat lightly have,

Thereafter wol we crie al day and crave!

Forvede us thyng, and that desiren we:

Presse on us faste, and thanne wol we fle" (515-20). 

The gist of this passage is that women will always seek after what you deny them, and undervalue what they're given. Although I think this argument could be made about men as well, I'm curious what it is about women (or people) that seeks after the difficult and the unobtainable. What about that difficulty makes the end result more valuable?

Along that line, does it follow that people should make love continually difficult to obtain for their partner? That seems a little counter-productive to me. Perhaps after a certain time period you can stop "playing hard to get." 

Thoughts?

 

Back in Black

To whomever reads this blog:

I am (once again) officially returning to the blogging stage. Although I'll continue to publish my personal projects (photos and writing) on sunbursts21@blogspot.com, this blog is about feel the cleansing fire of a political reformation.

Prepare yourself. : )