In my case, it was a kyocera green-screen on my parents verizon network. It DID have mobile-web (remember those WHTML/WAP-sites?) when I went to Chicago. My next was a color-screened nokia until both myself and the web got serious and my sony-erickson was the fastest GPRS connected phone (which I infrared-connected to my HP WinMo device quite requently!)

Enough about my history, on to my point: I’m a geek, so I loved the capabilities of the phone, no matter how tedious it was. Most consumers aren’t willing to go through the tedium for the glory, and *finally* we have a crop of large-screened phones which allow something aside from left-down-right-up-left-left-down-ok magic of the early Nintendo days!

WinMo tried to be this player years back. Wow! An interface that was colorful, full and wasn’t ridiculously hidden behind 19 menus. It had a Today screen which told me more than the TIME! But Windows/M$ got lazy, were happy to ignore emerging tech while raking in the cash, and Apple took over, overnight.

Now, in the wake of the iPhone, LG & Samsung have created their own semi-smart interaces. I’ve been running the Samsung TouchWiz for awhile now, and I like it. I’ve played with LG’s, and it seems quite on-par.

But just look at this:

Facebook. There. Touch it!

Compared to 4 yrs ago:

Right-Down, Right, ok, Right?

Compared to 10 yrs ago:

There's an interface? Where?

“You recently received a message from Comast that stated that we offer ‘unlimited’ high speed internet usage. The message you recieved was in error on this point. Comcast has a usage threshold of 250 Gigabyes per month.. We deliver a high value Internet service that gives you .. the fastest download speeds available – up to 50 Mbps.”

Let’s do the math:

250 GB = 2000000 Mbits
2000000 Mbits/50 Mbits = 40000 seconds
40000 seconds / 3600 seconds = 11.11 hours.

Seriously? I can only use your service for 11 hours out of the 30 days (720hrs)?? That’s 1.5% of the time. That’s worse than pulling a play from a doctor’s office: 10 minutes after waiting 1 hour.

I can’t believe there’s no competitor in my neighborhood.

Aaaand, here’s yet another blog-post, this time, on church today.
I’m touchy on many topics about which I’ve heard only one side. Not that I’m against everything being said from that one side.  And I say I’m always attempting to hear the various things the audience could be hearing, through playing with each term through it’s domain.

Generically, the first concern I always have is with logical fallacies (from false-analogies to straw-men). The second (if not actually the first!) is context. Sadly, I tend to perceive people to be disinterested in either of these valuable items. A third concern is a new one for me, one which I’m trying to understand: content, form & function. The fourth concern is still only 3 weeks old: conflation of multiple-value-scales. This last one may of course be the same as ignoring contexts.

All this to say, when I come to a confusing or often misrepresented passage or idea, it’s important to look at whether the issue being discussed is in the arena of all of life (natural), personal/relational life, social-religious life (church), or spiritual (relationship to God). In particular to 1 Corinthians 11, these 4 contexts are “praying and prophesying” (in church), “in the Lord” (spiritual relationship), “woman” (nature, applying to all), “wife” (personal relationship). Notice a context which is missing (there may be more): non-spiritual, everyday, pragmatic life. (But wait! All life is spiritual! We can debate this later..)

I find this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 amusing and sadly confused by many — it’s not as hard as it is made out to be. It is the same genre as Ephesians 5, yet people seem to understand Eph 5 much easier. Perhaps it is the cultural concretes which people cannot see beyond in the analogy.

My thesis for this passage (which I’m stating more than supporting), simply put: the headcoverings (or lack) are only half the context/analogy: they are concrete, evidential markers of the state of a personal-spiritual relationship (See this compared with the “simple” explanation at the end of this article). Note the 2 halves: the spiritual relationship a each person has with Christ is not to be hindered (generically). Second, particular to Corinth, this relationship to Christ was being hindered by humanity’s interest in sinful things.

I say “each person” because (a) both men & women are called out for their generic interest in sinful stuff in the whole book, and (b) in this passage, men and women are equally united & related “in the Lord.” This is at least an egalitarian starting point; whether it is also the finishing point, we’ll concern ourselves with later.

Likewise the egalitarian semantics involved a “head-as-source” anthropology/theology. This is often derided with semantic and logical arguments, but it does offer an interesting point of unity: if this passage is in regards to men and women being out of fellowship with Christ (and the religious consequences), then there will be no supernatural glory, love, truth or life in one’s thoughts, affections or behaviors; only that weak kind which is naturally birthed. If this is the case, then this passage deepens before us again, speaking to those who are in a religious context, performing religious activities, but are without any spiritual connection, including any supernatural “spiritual authority” from God. But this topic is foundational, and Paul is stopping one step from this, instead, focusing on something between wives and their husbands.

Another point of contextual confusion is that of women praying publically vs. privately. This is not private, personal, silent, American prayer. This is corporate, out-loud, leadership-prayer (since, as so many are willing to remind us, this text is about leadership).  Further, and more precisely, this text is about church-order: prayer and prophesy are mentioned not just together, but more frequently than any other term (especially authority, leadership, submission or glory).

All these reasons lead me to understand verse 13 as “Judge for yourselves: Is it a disgrace for a woman to lead-in-prayer when she is in sin, disconnected from God in her personal spiritual life?”

Having a clarifying lens of “uncovering=disconnection” for wives & “covering=disconnection” for men, we can go through and check our understanding. The earlier text (verse 5) could be understood as simple-replacement: “Every woman who prays or prophesies without a covering dishonors her [head] husband.” Yup, that is more or less in-line. First, sociologically, my wife and I will reflect each other’s values and nature. If my wife is troubled in sin, and she is prophesying, doesn’t this disconnect reflect on me? Verse 7, likewise, can be read as “a man ought not be disconnected from God or hide his glory[relationship to Christ]“. The second half of verse 7, I tenatively logically consider that man is the glory of Christ (like Eph 5: church, body of Christ, glorious).

Still, there are admittedly many questions remaining: angels? “woman is the glory of man”?

All this to say there is a simplest explanation: “good Corinthian wives had head-coverings.” To be a good Christian wife in Corinth, you should actually follow the culture, so ppl don’t think you are able to be both a whore and a Christian.” In this scenario, a wife would dishonor her husband by calling public attention to herself praying/prophesying in front of people) and give them the impression she wasn’t married, or even worse, dressed up like a whore. I believe this is the simple interpretation and application I have heard growing up for general conservative dress amongst Christian wives. But the application was off: the analogy of all women’s clothing “in the world” as equal to “whoring” is hardly the case.

Finally, the worst crime I consistently see is not just a return to cultural norms after learning “Biblical” values, but an enforcement of cultural norms with the weight of God. Using God as your wrecking-ball/bull is never a good idea, and will only kill people. What do I mean by this? Here, I am attempting to counter the false-analogy of “women have children, and I don’t, so of course we’re different.” That’s not just a conflation of roles & scales.. That there are functions which my wife performs better than I do, and vice versa is not the question or concern. But what if she is better at (and enjoys more than I!) earning an income? More importantly, am I unwilling to learn and change to improve our situation, not just pragmatically, but even for the gospel? The worst example is “women should stay home with kids.” Really? For thousands of years men worked near the home, and the boys did their chores around the home, learning directly form the father. Most importantly, is there directly a verse which says “all men must not raise their children”? All that to say, 1 Corinthians 11 speaks much about culture and wives, but whether I am in any authority over her, Paul later addresses that we are each in authority over one another, to submit to one another, and where she excels, I would be just plain dumb (independent of unspiritual) to not let her live out who God has created her to be.

Am I treading a fine line between two heated sides? Yes, and I will continue to do so gladly, since few others seem willing to.

Yet I feel a strong compulsion to fideism, that all life is faith. Not in the sense that over-religious take it, but in a philosophical sense of pragmatism: that I’m not able to prove that you are real, but I have no real alternative than to act like you are, continuing in this world, despite my lack of “absolute” knowledge. This is a metaphysical faith — as to what is or is not reality. Yet, I am not comfortable calling all my perceptions of the observable world ‘reality’. I *believe* reality to be bigger, more inclusive of the spiritual (super-natural) (forces/personalities/plans/plots). Again, is this now outside the realm of metaphysics? This is precisely where Kant draws the line. And to some degree, rightly so. Our categories of time, space, personhood, etc are all learned (so says sociology) here from our experience/others, and there is no real reason for us to have direct ability to reason / apply direct ideas to them. Such is simply imagination. Most blog-readers will revolt, but seriously — this is precisely the consequences of Kant. This is directly what he was troubled about. Leibnitz’s Monadology-world was mostly imagination to Kant. But the best part? Kant wasn’t an atheist. He wasn’t trying to kill off religion, just, as I am, understand what faith is, what knowledge is, and where the looney-bins in the middle lie, and confuse the Truth for everyone else.

As an aside, I want to take on/clarify the nature/nurture thing. Christians of the conservative sort will often place man’s worth in being a human, using some confusing terminology of “direct creation” of God. This, oddly enough, is heretical. God is not continually creating, he stopped at day 7. He may be upholding & sustaining, but that’s not what they said. Nevertheless, an important philosophical question has been what is innate to man? The religious will say “a soul” (but that doesn’t answer the question of how much, and what kind of knowledge). The empiricist will say “nothing.” The rationalist will say “could be anything, likely plenty.” The Apostle Paul considered men to learn of God both ways, written on our hearts, and seen in creation. Sociology today will be more in-line with the empiricists of old, since we are born into a world already-started-and-on-its-way. There are cultural norms and symbols (called language) which has developed and progressed, and we merely pick it up (or are forced to learn it!). Notice how similar this is to God’s work: not creation, but sustaining. Notice also, how I don’t feel a great need to answer this question, just taking note of what is and is not readily knowable.

Returning to what is and is not faith, there is always the trouble of sociological data which tells of psychological projection: that Christians are those predisposed to “see” the world through religious eyes, like the artist predisposed to see through aesthetic eyes, and the musician, through orchestral, sonorous eyes and ears. This is a dandy position, but while writing this out, I realised, it is too dandy. It’s too easy, too simple, too comfortable. It has no prescription for change, no interest in cross-communication (of which I am entirely), and worst of all, it fearfully promotes individualism and group-ism which is always a tad too divisive for my likes. Such is the “wisdom” we hear all too often. No pre-disposition theories for me. Sad how inclusion theories rapidly turn exclusive.

So what can we say about faith? Is it “faith” for the young girl to believe Mr.Bear is drinking his tea? Is it “faith” for the dog to wait by the door, because you come home everyday at 6pm (and likewise the congregant who simply attends consistently every week)?
These two examples are often countered by what I shall hereby call the “duty of expectation.” The congregant is faithful, not just because he is *consistent* (methodological) but that he ‘expects’ ’something’ (from God) to happen. Further (and even worse) this is meant to mean “right now.” See how this devolves rapidly to a prior position of “God is always doing something, and you need to keep watch, otherwise you’ll miss it/him!” I am fully aware that I am “missing” “the blessing” of God’s activity in this world. But understand the difference: they see God in the shadows, lurking. I see (believe) God in the forefront, maintaining all life at it’s deepest physiological/physical-chemical-particle-physics level. Christ *is* (I believe) the logos. (How’s that for a subject of an idealism/materialism debate!) Studying this world is studying Christ.. but not in a universe-as-God’s-body way. Upholding creation with One’s power & word is mightily different than essense.

Anyways, I feel like my personal-life-faith is macroscopic: I’m living out my large-scale plans which (I believe) will further God’s (Jesus’) life-work on this planet (were he still around). I also feel like my faith is at times empty and utterly blind, filled with nothing but hope. I doubt anything will happen, but I will act anyways.. or somethings I’ve given up on & don’t act anymore. If nothing happens, then so be it: resignation (and potentially bitterness). If something happens: enjoy it, run with it. This world *is* bitter. Christ tasted it’s effect (and likely affect), and did not keep himself from it.
Kierkegaard would call this resignation half-way to faith, and the truly faithful to be beyond resignation, enjoying life’s gifts even in their absense.

I’m stuck on the topic for now, but that’s the depth I’ve got so far.

Well, Mark and i were thinking we should really start food blogging, so here’s an attempt.  Dinner last night was sort of a hodgepodge, but really tasty anyway.  Number one: Emeril’s french bread. I’ve made this recipe 4 or 5 times now, and i decided to spice it up- with garlic salt, a bit of mint, oregano, and fresh basil. Mark made the suggestion to put cheese on top as it baked. Yup, that worked well too!

fresh out of the oven

I have to admit, after 5 tries, i’m still trying to figure out how to roll these puppies up correctly. One day it will look like a baguette.

mark is a great hand model

and now a closeup…

mmm good

As i said, the rolling is still not perfect, but the herbs really gave it a nice taste.

voila

and now it’s a sandwich. Turkey, spinach, tomato, green onion, and 1-year-old New Zealand cheddar cheese (on sale for $3 at Kroger).

Now while the bread was baking, I was onto something else that i’m really proud of, because i figured out how to do it myself . Beer battered fries, or more specifically tonight: Guinness Chips.

Pretty simple: 5-6tbsp all purpose flour, plus half a bottle of guinness, and 3 thick-cut medium russetts. Feel free to drink the other half of the bottle.

batter for the chips

it should be really nice and thick, like a gravy. Coat those potatoes! Now, put some vegetable oil on med-high, and once it’s hot, throw ‘em in, a few at a time. Use a big pan if you can, so that they don’t stick together. Also make sure your oil really is nice and hot so that it can fry the batter on quickly, otherwise it’ll come off and sink to the bottom of the pot. Not good.

batch 1 of 4

Ok, so when they float, give ‘em another minute or two. You want them nice and brown, especially if you made them super-thick. Scoop them out, and sprinkle with salt.

Enjoy. I did!

But this sociology class is teaching me more about myself than any other class. It is showing me some distinct traits which are good & bad. Philosophy only gives me options. I like studying the human nature, and I like considering the philosophical options, however, I still enjoy some concrete things every now & then. But I’m not a scientist. I’d rather let someone else run the numbers, do the methods (is that what research assistents are for?). I’ve got plenty of ideas.

Background Point #2: Carmen’s Theory of Society.
I (like most people) value what’s in me too much; others read this in me, and find no ‘room’ in/nearby me for themselves to value me/attributes of/things in me. I have been actively stopping other ppl from valuing me. I should start letting other ppl value my qualities.. cuz that’s their job, not mine.  Society only works when other ppl value what’s in me, and I in them.

Background Point #3: NYT Depression Article. Just read it. (over & over again! )

Quick, Fake Responses to all this, in particular to Carmen’s Theory:
-Waaay too idealistic.
-That’ll never work
-That hasn’t worked
-That’s why I’m so self-consumed; others never valued me
-Ok, so maybe some ppl valued me, but I didn’t value them, cuz of an unequal distribution. That is, Older ppl might have valued me, and I might have valued them for their place in my life (being old ppl).. but a lack of peer-valuing has contributed to an uneasiness in me, and self-reflection. The “rumination” theory of the mind, that we get focused and obsessive about certain attributes we got picked-on by others long ago.

Perhaps a real response:
What I value is what I value; it is initially sourced in what I find outside myself (like everybody else). But because of various ruminations/imaginations/strong-mindedness, I create a world about me, fanciful, unique-to-me, and nearly impenetrable.

It all starts with something very small which I find amazing or appauling. Then, instead of  (a) “tempering” any next idea or thought regarding this against reality, or (b) perhaps as many others do: just leave it be, I continue on my mental jaunt, which to me is fun. It no longer seems imaginative but very, very real – more real than the external world in which the idea was sourced. This, of course is not simply my personal, willful “commitment” to rationalism; a free-willful choice is hardly what I feel! Rather, my mind has come to a near-enslavement of rumination by sheer habit. This enslavement is where I feel all/most of my determinism/anti-will ideology.

Consequences of all this:
I feel oddly confused, relieved and surprised by all this self-learning. Carmen noted how most of this information did not come from inside of me. (Read: I’m not that amazing after all.) Second, this is all certainly a relief, that there is a new platform from which I can actually live my life and take part in what actually is the external world.

Most importantly, for all those med-students who wish to be psychiatrists (which likely I should have seen a loooooooong time ago! ..but they’re all booked up in this city..) I have some words of advice:
1) You will not solve your patient’s problems unless you understand their context, and method of mental processes. Read: I hope you took your psychology & sociology classes seriously in undergrad!
2) You will not change the world with drugs. Hopefully you already know this. But hopefully you understand your role as a counselor more than as a doctor.
3) You will get more “data” on mental issues than anyone else ever will. You have the chance to be the best at what you do. Make sure you get the data & be a good mental scientist. (See #1).

Luckily, the latter has been the case, but oddly enough, the dinner-party hasn’t died. And that’s ok. In fact, we’ve been to 5 dinner parties in the past 8 weeks of this year!

-Nehama’s Bday – Sometime in January
-John’s 9-course meal @ Moshe’s – Sometime in January
-My Bday Last Week
-Carmen’s Bday Thursday night
-Nathan’s Dinner tonight

Carmen’s Bread recipe from FN/Emeril is always a winner & likewise the cakes of Ben & Jon.

Dictionary.com to the rescue: “1810–20; < F[rench;] de luxe of luxury”

So this is where the guessing comes in. “Luxe.. like ‘light’”, right? Light is nice, pretty & good. Nope. Luxe: “Origin: 1550–60; < F < L luxus excess.” (Oddly enough, in 1810, Napolean was unmarried & remarried! )

“Luxurious” means “you don’t need it.”

Looking back, some basic steps I took were:
* Mac-n-cheese from a box (still love it!)
* Cooking spaghetti noodles (just how many?! how do i know they are done?) and ragu sauce (how much sauce?! do I cook the sauce??)
* “Improved” mac-n-cheese: “Wait! I can add lunchmeat to this!  ..and boil broccoli in there too!”

At the “improved mac-n-cheese” stage I considered myself a “well-rounded healthy eater”   Doing the same thing with Lipton noodle packages was the next step.

And cooking chicken. The first time I was paranoid about the salmonella/e-coli thing. I had no method & touched everything too much & washed my hands a million times!

Overall, I didn’t think twice about cost; I grew up in a family which had always cooked every meal at night. Lunch was in the fridge. It was *always* cheaper to buy groceries than to go out for every meal. And I was always on (still am!) a tight budget, so I couldn’t just grab take-out for lunches or dinners. To this day, I/we eat under $5/day (per person). That’s pretty dang good. We splurge and go to Subway for a foot long, but that’s $2.50 for each of us. Breakfast is easy with yogurt & oatmeal or grits. That leaves $2 for dinners. Cheesy Potatoes & Ham anyone? Or Cilantro & spinach in the food processor as a pesto over pasta? That’s less than $1 right there! I’ll stop. Good, cheap food is totally possible. Y’all are just slackers