Classic Italian cocktail: Bellini

The Bellini was created in 1948 by Giuseppi Cipriani at Harry’s Bar in Venice. He named it after 15th century artist Giovanni Bellini and used a local tradition of macerating white peaches in wine to create one of the most popular cocktails on this list. Many recipes use champagne, but instead why not make it the Italian way using Italian Prosecco as a delicious budget alternative?

Ingredients
1 oz. white peach puree (if you can’t find peach puree, substitute peach schnapps)
3 oz. chilled Prosecco
1 dash of maraschino cherry juice (for color)

Method
Pour the puree into a chilled champagne glass and top up with the Prosecco. Stir until mixed and add a dash of the maraschino liqueur until the drink takes on a pinkish hue. Serve.

Classic Italian cocktail: Americano

First created by Gaspare Campari in the mid 1800s, this mixture of sweet vermouth, bitter liqueur and club soda became known by its current name because of its popularity among American visitors to Milan in the early 1900s.

Ingredients
1 oz. sweet vermouth
1 oz. Campari liqueur
Chilled club soda

Method
Pour the spirits into a chilled Collins glass with ice cubes, stir and garnish with an orange slice or a twist of lemon peel.

Classic Italian cocktail: Sgroppino

If the Negroni is the only way to begin an Italian meal, the Sgroppino is the ideal way to finish it. A blend of Prosecco, lemon sorbet and vodka topped off with chopped mint, its refreshing taste is perfect for cleansing the palate.

Ingredients
1 oz. vodka
2 tbsp lemon sorbet
Prosecco
Freshly chopped mint

Method
Place the sorbet and vodka in a chilled champagne flute and stir gently. Top with Prosecco and garnish with freshly chopped mint

Classic Italian cocktail: Bicicletta

Apparently named after elderly men who would swerve all over the road on their way home after a few too many drinks at the bar, the Bicicletta is another classy way to begin a meal, this time making a long drink from the local wines and spirits.

Ingredients
2 oz. Campari liqueur
2 oz. dry white wine (Pinot Grigio would be perfect)
Club soda

Method
Pour the spirits into a tall glass with ice cubes and top with club soda. Garnish with a slice of lemon.

It seems most of my life is on a project of curiosity — how has humanity through the ages viewed the transcendent realms: the location of hope, of curiosity, of mystery and potential and of infinite fear? Religions deal with this, philosophy like Existentialism deals with this. So as I view these various perspectives and values, I find that Christian beliefs are surprisingly sturdy, and they get pretty-well along with many ideas. In this dialogue, I end up finding a new sense of depth and goodness to my faith.

But that’s intellectual appreciation. It doesn’t really do much for the soul. I can appreciate an idea, but act entirely outside it’s parameters. And that’s where churches get curious. Sunday mornings are filled with squishy songs, and large groups of people wearing their heart on their sleeves, embracing the aesthetics of language and sound (albeit in the form of socially-normative prescribed behaviors). I think a lot, and I’m thinking about what’s occurring instead of embracing and embodying like other people.

I remember asking myself, around age 20, “Do I wanna be like (committed, expressive) person “A” over there?” It scared me. I didn’t want to be. I didn’t want to be, but I was still attracted to what it could be like. Being convinced, being self-transcendent, being energetic, being hopeful. And for a time, I was, or at least thought I was, but it didn’t do/accomplish much. Finding myself no further in life, I guess I’ve regressed into myself again. Given alternatives, I’m thrilled with the person and work of Christ.. I’m thrilled to be with my wife in the face of being alone. Life together is great, and so much more dynamic.

I think what I’m saying is that reminders and motivators for love certainly vary by time, place and person. But what seems screwy to me is the general church assumption that worship-music helps people fall in love with Jesus more. That seems a little weird, since love itself is the kind of thing which multiples itself. Oh sure, eucharist is all about remembering, sermons are all about remembering, songs are about remembering, and Peter said his whole duty was to remind the church of what she forgets.. but there seems to me that sometimes words aren’t enough. Sometimes I need to talk with people. Sometimes I do like my heart on my sleeve, but oftentimes it’s been beat down into hiding with cliche. Authentic love is amazingly powerful, and that’s why I’m thrilled to be married. And that’s what I’m looking for among church-members. Does such love cross intellectual borders? Yes, but not when we’re all reveling in our own understandings. I’ll love you and I’ll listen to your stories about your kids, but I need you to listen and hear me ramble about Sartre & Wittgenstein.. because ya just did.

But a second, more interesting view has emerged among us youngsters. It seems there’s a tad bit of agnosticism afoot, mostly in reaction to a lack of differentiation between “faith” and “knowledge.” Oh, those two ideas have quite a history of clashing, but it seems in the more conservative camps, where “truth” is trumpeted, knowledge of it is playing in harmony. Earlier, older fundamentalists would speak clearly of their “conviction” of what is or is not truth.. but that was apparently not good enough. Now, conservatives “know” what is true. That’s great, because now everyone else is, well, stupid! ..eyes-rolling..

But do you see what has happened? In honest-to-goodness matters of the empirically unprovable nature (transcendent ontology), knowledge is now being claimed, instead of faith. Well, if you have not faith (only knowledge), how is it you please God? Frankly, I don’t find it surprising that people say they “know” God; I’m glad. What surprises me is how people seem to leave faith behind! Faith– the act, the hope — is what is common to all mankind. We were fully able to communicate with our Jewish friends because we both understood this basic nature of humanity & reality: that throughout history there have been varying ideas about what is transcendent, and some may be more reasonable, but none of them are provable. This equal-footing in the face of the dark, empty other-worldly void is where communication can occur with all people. Knowledge-claims are confidence-claims, and our confidence is only partly a matter of rationality; reason can hint, and can improve our will-to-believe, but belief is still willed.

It’s tough being human. We see only what we’re tuned into. Such selectivity is the basis for prejudice and violence — I face it daily in my Sociology classes. Sociology is committed to clarifying the reality of social-aggregates for the masses, but the masses first learn most of their sociological-reality before truth can get to ‘em. Tribalism sucks, objectivity is handy.. but so very rare – rare unto the point of non-existence; our inter-subjectivity suggests much to trust in.

Now, how Wittgenstein gets to atomism isn’t a matter of empiricism or particle accelerator-colliders. There’s a parallel world which he sees necessarily requiring metaphysical atomism: semantic atomism. Maybe I should back up a bit. There is another “hill” by which Wittgenstein approaches his atomic conclusion. Human language is a very flexible thing. It’s not like machine-code, where each and every operator and label is important to the point of system-crashing. Human language also isn’t like code, since it is filled with vagaries, nuance. What human language presents itself as is a weird mix of names, relations, actions and general fluff.

Names are significant entities, otherwise known as “terms.” They’re a handy connection between language and physical, empirical reality. They are usually as clear and present as a stop-sign is (and if they’re not, well, they can be made to be so by simple presentation of the ‘thing’ they represent). Names, as signs, are just like those silly metaphysical atomic entities — simple, and undecomposable (who knew that was an actual word!) in meaning. Sure, we could try and decompose “unicorn” into words (through descriptors), for instance “A unicorn is a white horse, with a single straight, pointy horn on it’s nose, like a narwhal.” But such a description (however accurate or precise) is hardly a decomposition.. it’s really just pointing me towards the possible idea or possible reality of a unicorn, but not in any real way pointing a unicorn out. Put another way, descriptions are really good filters and painters, but really bad labels or signs.

So that’s the majority of the tough-stuff. After the clarification of what atomism is, I really just see worlds parallel to our own, in logical space and/or in language-space. And speaking of logic, Wittgenstein views the relationship of these atomic entities as logically oriented. The world’s content is atomic, so the world’s form (like language’s form) can also be parallel, and like science tries to find out the precise nature of nature, the form of nature is spelled out in logic. I may have presented logic here as secondary, contingent or as “accidental”, but really, logic is the third “way” up the philosophical hill of Wittgenstein’s ontology — were you to start with logic, Wittgenstein would expect you to also end up with atomism.

Word count:  431.

First up, Thursday-night cheesecake making..
I knew a good recipe was to be found with my mother-in-law, since she gave me the pans in the first place! I planned on making either apple or blueberry cheesecake, and I figured the other ought have chocolate chips with an Oreo crust, but it didn’t hit me until late afternoon that I should/could add some Bailey’s to it! Turns out my genius idea isn’t new (in fact it’s marketed in restaurants!), and a quick google search led me to The Delicious Life blog. Most Baileys cheesecakes called for between 1/4-1/2 of Baileys. I opted for the lower end, and, like the blog said, a Tablespoon of instant coffee, which I dissolved in the microwaved Baileys. But unlike the basic sugar-infused recipe @ the delicious life, I used the mother-in-law’s (exceptionaly simple) recipe:

An Oreo crust used about 1 1/2 cups blended into bits (I picked out & ate the bigger unbroken chunks!), pressed in with a straight-edge pint-glass, and much to my delight, the oreos successfully stuck even half-way up the side! Fancy!

The “filling” of the cheesecake:
3 (8 oz) packages of cream cheese (2 regular and 1 neufchatel)
1 can sweetened condensed milk (Standard medium-large can, not the iddy-biddy ones, I used the store-brand)
4 eggs
1 tsp. vanilla
1 cup frozen semisweet mini chocolate chips.. which ended up being THROWN HARD into the cheesecake (instead of mixed, which would havec worked too).

And of course the 1/3c Baileys+ dissolved-in instant coffee.

All that is mixed-in, starting with the cream cheese, eggs (one at a time), vanilla+baileys+coffee. I was really worried because it was a tad soupier than the previously-made blueberry cheesecake (graham-crust, no chocolate, just 1c blended up blueberries dropped in overtop the filling in the pan.) Oh, and I used a 9 or 10″ pan, and wrapped it in aluminum foil around the sides & 1.5″ over the top-edge to bake it without burning it, @ 325 for about an hour, +-15 minutes.

I ended up staying up til 1am babying the Bailey’s cake, since it was significantly soupy, I even placed a stock-pot overtop the whole thing outside the oven to make sure it was baked-through, without burning it! But after 18hours in the fridge, it turned out perfectly creamy!

The Goal:

Now, onto the pizza!! 4 hours beforehand, we started the dough. But at the last minute, I swapped recipes, from the food-network Mark Malnati recipe, which failed to include a sufficient quantity of cornmeal (as well as requiring waaaaay too much flour!) to Unos/Due’s recipe here. Oh look, Uno’s turned out perfect! We did end up using bread flour though. Again, we used the springform pan (after the punch-down, second rise) we rolled it out to 6″ larger than the 11″ pan. It turned out to be about 1/4-1/2″ thick, depending on how contracted it decided to be. A quick lift with 4 hands, and in the oiled pan she went.. and quickly contracted down the sides of the pan!! So we had to have it overhang and set for a minute before I added 3/4c (2.5oz really) of pre-shredded, dry “Italian-blend cheese” (asiago, parm & romano) to the bottom of the pan as a base. Then, in true Giordano’s style Chicago stuffed-pizza, the meat & veg goes on the bottom! I sliced up a turkey sausage and fried it with a variety of italian spices (ground pepper, oregano, dried mustard & garlic to name a few). I also tossed in some thin dry-baked ham chunks. Ground hamburger or pepperoni would have worked too, but the sausage tasted perfect. Onions overtop the meat, with 2c of fresh grated mozzerella and 1c of fresh grated romano (again!). We threw some chopped basil & garlic overtop the cheese (could also have gone under the cheese) and threw some chopped/minced tomatoes overtop! In the oven @ 475 for 45minutes, 430 for another 30 minutes, and it was ready to go!  (We also did a veg pizza too, which was baked for a little less, and that crust was 100% absolutely perfect!).

When they were ready, the cheese was mostly dry (the veg was a little soupier), and had sunk down pretty low, almost too low. I could have used more asiago or romano. The flopped-over crust also needed to be cut before being thrown in the oven.. I had to cut & crack it off just to remove the springform rim! At this point we garnered the attention of our friends who said, “THAT’s a pizza! It looks like a cake!” We slid the pizza off onto a plate, and cut with a serrated knife into 8 pieces & served it up. Most people ate 2, some only 1, since they were saving room for the amazing cheesecake.

Thanks everyone who braved the “experiment!”

Now take that perspective and apply it to other things hoards of money are spent on. Case in point: weddings.

Ok, so not everyone who spends lots of money on their wedding doesn’t get divorced. That’s not exactly what I’m saying. And of course daddy’s usually gonna drop as much as he can for “his little girl.” But is there a chance, and underlying view of money & worth that says, “If I have/fund an expensive wedding, maybe that’ll keep ‘em together.” That doesn’t sound right, I’m sure. Perhaps nearly mercenary too.

But instead of looking from the top-down, try the bottom-up. “Man, that wedding cost someone lots of money– ya don’t wanna go through that again..” I’d wager 2nd, 3rd & 4th weddings are less costly than the first. And even independent of re-marriage, wedding-costs go up the more reminders of it you have laying about. And it’s those reminders which can help secure a marriage (even though there’s plenty of other ones too).

Now, don’t get me wrong. Plenty of people get married for under $50 and stay together for over 50 years. Fact is, they have something going, independent of money. But for those people out there who aren’t sure they have that same something, fear can be a great motivator to do silly things like spend $30k on a wedding. I’m really writing about those silly people who never decided to think twice about what marriage really is about.

Ultimately, I find the analytic nature of this text to be much clearer than 18th century continental philosophy. Was ist Begriff? I fear reading the entire work of Hegel would be required to understand it. Wittgenstein however states clearly “Fact is..”, “Propositions are..”, “Objects are…” As much as I can handle vague and amorphous ideas while reading texts, I often feel I cannot speak, let alone level critique on such writings. If I am to write even remotely definitively about my knowledge of a text, I must have relatively determinate, morphous knowledge, lest I fill pages with nonsense. The trouble to analytic writings however, is the summary nature of them. Wittgenstein is effectively creating a logical dog-pile the size of the universe. Few minds are capable of keeping in memory all the labels and precise definitions he uses. Outlines & notes will prove useful.

As to Schroeder’s writings, I am at once thrilled and relieved to read his works (especially chapter 2) as a vorwort to the actual text. So very often I have been instructed by the instructor to dive into the text of philosophy, only to have absolutely no clue what is the basic assumptions, language, or final end of the text. Regarding such assumptions and approach, I did begin to notice some of what Schroeder later elucidated as the tension between logic and metaphysics in the Tractatus. That is to say, is logic all that is, or naive realism, upon which logic builds? To some degree it sounds like a chicken-and-egg problem.

Later, Schroeder explicates Frege’s Bedeutung and Sinn. Simple referentialism seems weak in matters of all the words which are not nouns. Yet words like “all”, “each”, and even “like” can be referencing a logical function which precisely defines the term. Yet Schroeder’s problems with referentialism seem to be one of description over and against definition. Referentialism deals well with the latter; horribly with the former.

Word Count: 344.

Alright, now that cheese sauce is moving along, take those sauteed veggies and put them on top of the shrimp, then the blended tomato bits/sauce. Put some fresh basil and goat cheese on top, then stir it all up, put in your now warm oven for 10 min. Now you can get your pasta going, since it’ll take as long as the baked shrimp.

Now you can continue with the cheese sauce. Make sure you haven’t neglected stirring it. Once it’s thick, i like to add about 1 TB of white wine (of whatever type you were already planning on drinking with the meal), and a little nutmeg doesn’t hurt, then turn it to low while you wait for everything else to get ready.

Ok, so now 10 minutes have elapsed, the pasta’s ready, get your shrimp out of the oven. For plating, put the pasta on first, then the cheese sauce, then spoon out some of the wonderfully tomatoey shrimp-veggie goodness. Looks fairly pretty plus it’s one of the tastiest things i’ve ever made. Serves 2, plus a lil’ bit o’ leftovers for tomorrow’s lunch. Buon appetito!

Why? It seems that while there is “more wealth” in the world, there are more people of course, and I wonder if the ratio, as well as the ratios of stratification, are at all remotely constant over a long-period. In times of the nobility, town-and-countryside conditions for Europe were much like middle-Asia is today. By today’s Western standards, this is beyond poverty, yet by today’s Western standards, even kings lived without a/c, fast or reliable transit, respectably clean showers and toilets, etc. They just had gold (ok, maybe not, but they had plenty of “huge tracts of land”), and people that listened to them.

I know that any social-strat expert will say the rich are getting richer, and I don’t doubt that over the 20th century, but what and where has this been the case before? Where and when has it not been the case? Anyone, anyone??