Last night I watched most of a program on MSNBC. It's called Lockup, and it provides a glimpse into life in a number of American prisons. The one last night was about San Quentin. San Quentin is a true heavy hitter - a maximum-security adult joint. It brought back memories, because I used to work in just such a prison. I was a correctional officer, back in the early '80s, at the Joliet Correctional Center, on Collins Street in Joliet, Illinois.
The Joliet Correctional Center was the setting for the opening scenes of the movie The Blues Brothers. That movie may have been the best thing that happened to that prison. Before that movie, the east truck gate, situated in the middle of the wall that faces Collins Street, hadn't worked for years. Anything that had to be trucked in had to come through the west truck gate, on the back wall of the prison. The east gate was much easier to use, except for that issue of its not working. The movie people decided that they just HAD to have the east gate working, so they had it fixed. Everyone was happy. The state got part of its prison fixed, and saved thousands of dollars in the process. The movie people got their scene just the way they wanted it.
I didn't see The Blue Brothers until years after my career as a correctional officer was finished. When I did see it, I think I bored my wife with the guided tour of the place. I could still give such a tour from memory then. I still can. Max joints like Joliet change everyone who encounters them, whether inmate or staff. Inmates that are unskilled at being criminals sharpen those skills greatly in there. For those of us staffers - well, a lot of us come away having lost much of our faith in human nature. I came to the conclusion that a lot of those who wore the green - the officers - weren't very different from those who wore blue - the inmates. I still have, and probably always will have, a strong streak of the skeptic, even the cynic, in me. I think I always will. I may not always show it, but it's always there.
The tour. See that long building on the north wall? On the lower floor are the inmates' commissary, some storage. On the top floor is the Honor Dorm. Inmates with a long track record with no violent behavior may wind up in the Honor Dorm.
Those walls are limestone, about 20' high, I think, with coiled razor wire on top. Notice that on each corner there are towers; the nest on top of the towers where we worked were, I think, about 15' above the top of the wall. Someone once told me that they really didn't want the inmates to know what weaponry we had in the towers. That made no sense to me. I wanted to put a big sign on the outside of the towers: "Hey there Bad Dude, I have a .38, a 12-gauge with some buckshot and - check this out - some deer slugs. They'll tear you up! Lessee, what else - oh, yeah, check out this .30-.30, and lots of rounds for that, and oh yeah, CS gas and grenade laiunchers. Yep, all the stuff to ruin your day!"
Beside the Honor Dorm there's a big open space - The Yard. The yard is a place where lots and lost of inmates are out of their cellhouses at the same time. There may be three guards in the yard with maybe a couple of hundred bad guys. If you had to pick a place where violence was most likely to erupt, the yard would be one of them. The dining hall would be the other. There's a reason that there are three towers in sight - and aiming distance - of the yard.
A career as a correctional office may be years and years of boredom - nothing at all happening. Or, it may be that except for the minute that an inmate is carving you up. I'm all for boredom.
In the very middle of the prison is a small building that has its own tower. That's the North Segregation unit. The worst of the worst go there - inmates who would stab you in the heart in a second, if given the chance.
To the south and east of North Seg is the dining hall. The long building along the west wall has the laundry. On the second floor is a library. Most of the library consists of legal materials. A lot of the inmates are as familiar with the criminal codes and appellate procedures as any lawyer.
The residential buildings - OK, cellhouses - that house the vast majority of inmates are the East Cellhouse and the West Cellhouse. They are like wings along the front - south - side of the institution. East and West have different functions from each other - West has another seg unit and Protective Custody, along with permanent population. But, 'nuff of that for now.
I'm giving away nothing now. Some years back I saw in the newspapers that the Collins Street prison was closing. Funny thing - even when I worked there almost 30 years ago there were people who had lived in Joliet all their lives, who thought that Collins Street was already closed. It is now.
I think it no coincidence that my drinking reached its crisis points - the depths - when I worked at the place.
I think it no coincidence that I started treating my family like they were inmates - like they were just an extension of my work.
I am convinced I got out just in time.
But if you've ever been in a place and thought, "Man, if these walls could only talk. . ." I have been in such a place. And the walls may have done some talking. And I may have a story or two.
Thanks for hanging out for a few. Loved being with you, and I'd really love your reaction.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Saturday, December 4, 2010
"Theology" "OK, but keep it light"
I'll try.
The thing that prompted this bit of reflection was a column in a publication. It's a publication that is read almost exclusively by members of one denomination. The focal point of the article was the Apostles' Creed, and the point of the article was that the faith to which they adhere was the same as that expressed in the Apostles' Creed if you just tweak the Creed a little. The writer, I take it, was a newspaperman, not a theologian, so while he can be excused for not knowing this, I think he should have researched a little more thoroughly. He would have become aware of something:
He thinks he only tweaked a little here and there. But theologians and theological reflection live in the tweaks - in the seemingly minor details - and those tweaks undermined the very argument he was trying to make.
So, some thoughts on the theological task.
On philosophy and theology: there is an interrelation. Tertullian asked, "What do Athens and Jerusalem have to do with each other?" The answer is that theology has borrowed many philosophical terms, and has explored many fields that philosophy has. Ontology - what is the nature of existence? Descartes said that the principle he arrived at, about which he could not be deceived, was, "I think, therefore I am." Is he right, or is there an insurmountable difficulty in centering the nature of existence on the self? Epistemology - what does it mean to know? How do we come to know? For philosophy, a question may be, are we born as blank slates, as Hume and the Empiricists propose? If so, everything that we know comes only from our sense perception. Or are we with Kant, in maintaining that, while sense certainly has much to do with what we know, there is some knowledge - Kant would refer to it as a priori - that is truth independent of our sense perception?
While some terminology is shared between philosophy and theology, the latter field inquires into an area of ontology that philosophy (and science) cannot reach:
Why is there anything at all?
For the theologian, the question that Descartes tried to answer would have been moot. Existence is taken for granted, but how do you reconcile what science tells us with the creation stories?
How do we know? Can we receive saving knowledge only by revelation, or is there some knowledge at which we can arrive through reason and observation of what God has given in creation? Is there an analogy we can draw from existence - an analogia entis? The analogia entis was given by a prominent Protestant theologian as the reason he could not be Roman Catholic. For me, it's a large part of the reason that I am Roman Catholic.
Back to the tweaks, and a couple of illustrations of theology and its necessary "tweakiness" (if that's not a word it should be). There is a reason that, while Roman Catholics say the Nicene Creed, our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters do not. The reason? (Talk about a tweak): one word. Filioque. The third portion of the Nicene Creed starts: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son". "And the Son" in Latin is Filioque. Eastern Orthodoxy asks, does this not imply a subordination of one person in the Trinity to another?
Other tweaks were over, not one word, but one letter. "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ. . .One in being with the Father." There was lengthy debate over one letter. "Homoiousios" translates as "bearing a strong resemblance to" but it does not posit an identity between Father and Son. The denomination to which this newspaper writer belongs maintains a homoiousios position. The word that won out in ancient times was homoousios.Notice one missing "i". Homoousios does present an identity between Father and Son ' "One in being with the Father." In the Greek that missing "i" is the letter "iota." So a missing iota made more than an iota of difference.
Tweaks, tweaks, tweaks. They make a difference. In the questions posed above I am not really a Cartesian - if I stub my toe on a rock I think I am not deceived about the existence of that rock. Epistemologically I tend to Kant, rather than Hume. My ontology is a bit of a hybrid - I believe in an intelligent design and Designer, and if that Designer wanted to use a Big Bang and billions of years, so be it. What are billions of years to an infinite Being?
I'm sorry - was I supposed to put the "Heavy Sledding Ahead" warning in place? ;)
Thanks for hanging out for a few! Love your company, and I'd love your reactions.
The thing that prompted this bit of reflection was a column in a publication. It's a publication that is read almost exclusively by members of one denomination. The focal point of the article was the Apostles' Creed, and the point of the article was that the faith to which they adhere was the same as that expressed in the Apostles' Creed if you just tweak the Creed a little. The writer, I take it, was a newspaperman, not a theologian, so while he can be excused for not knowing this, I think he should have researched a little more thoroughly. He would have become aware of something:
He thinks he only tweaked a little here and there. But theologians and theological reflection live in the tweaks - in the seemingly minor details - and those tweaks undermined the very argument he was trying to make.
So, some thoughts on the theological task.
On philosophy and theology: there is an interrelation. Tertullian asked, "What do Athens and Jerusalem have to do with each other?" The answer is that theology has borrowed many philosophical terms, and has explored many fields that philosophy has. Ontology - what is the nature of existence? Descartes said that the principle he arrived at, about which he could not be deceived, was, "I think, therefore I am." Is he right, or is there an insurmountable difficulty in centering the nature of existence on the self? Epistemology - what does it mean to know? How do we come to know? For philosophy, a question may be, are we born as blank slates, as Hume and the Empiricists propose? If so, everything that we know comes only from our sense perception. Or are we with Kant, in maintaining that, while sense certainly has much to do with what we know, there is some knowledge - Kant would refer to it as a priori - that is truth independent of our sense perception?
While some terminology is shared between philosophy and theology, the latter field inquires into an area of ontology that philosophy (and science) cannot reach:
Why is there anything at all?
For the theologian, the question that Descartes tried to answer would have been moot. Existence is taken for granted, but how do you reconcile what science tells us with the creation stories?
How do we know? Can we receive saving knowledge only by revelation, or is there some knowledge at which we can arrive through reason and observation of what God has given in creation? Is there an analogy we can draw from existence - an analogia entis? The analogia entis was given by a prominent Protestant theologian as the reason he could not be Roman Catholic. For me, it's a large part of the reason that I am Roman Catholic.
Back to the tweaks, and a couple of illustrations of theology and its necessary "tweakiness" (if that's not a word it should be). There is a reason that, while Roman Catholics say the Nicene Creed, our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters do not. The reason? (Talk about a tweak): one word. Filioque. The third portion of the Nicene Creed starts: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son". "And the Son" in Latin is Filioque. Eastern Orthodoxy asks, does this not imply a subordination of one person in the Trinity to another?
Other tweaks were over, not one word, but one letter. "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ. . .One in being with the Father." There was lengthy debate over one letter. "Homoiousios" translates as "bearing a strong resemblance to" but it does not posit an identity between Father and Son. The denomination to which this newspaper writer belongs maintains a homoiousios position. The word that won out in ancient times was homoousios.Notice one missing "i". Homoousios does present an identity between Father and Son ' "One in being with the Father." In the Greek that missing "i" is the letter "iota." So a missing iota made more than an iota of difference.
Tweaks, tweaks, tweaks. They make a difference. In the questions posed above I am not really a Cartesian - if I stub my toe on a rock I think I am not deceived about the existence of that rock. Epistemologically I tend to Kant, rather than Hume. My ontology is a bit of a hybrid - I believe in an intelligent design and Designer, and if that Designer wanted to use a Big Bang and billions of years, so be it. What are billions of years to an infinite Being?
I'm sorry - was I supposed to put the "Heavy Sledding Ahead" warning in place? ;)
Thanks for hanging out for a few! Love your company, and I'd love your reactions.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Advent
Let all mortal flesh keep silence
And with fear and trembling stand.
Last Sunday began the Advent season. Advent, for Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants has a twofold meaning, both related to the coming of Christ.
The first meaning is that this is a season of preparation for Christmas. We get ourselves ready for the observance of the birth of Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. He wasn't born on December 25 - not if angels appeared to shepherds in the fields that night, he wasn't; it's cold in those parts. No one really knows what the date of his birth was. But, December 25 works nicely. It was, in Roman times, the date of the feast of the Saturnalia. It was a time for a drunken orgy. The genius of Christianity has always been its ability to co-opt what it found in culture, and to turn what it found to the purposes of the faith. One of the rowdier days of the year became one of the holiest times of the year.
Besides, the shortest, darkest day of the year is December 21. Four days later, the light has started to return. "God from God, light from Light. . ." "And the light has shone in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."
So we prepare. We heed the words of Jesus' forerunner, John the Baptist. Advent is one of the two great penitential seasons (Lent being the other.) "Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"
Ponder nothing earthly-minded
For with blessing in his hand. . .
We don't just prepare for Christmas during Advent. We are reminded anew of something we say at Mass on Sundays through the year:
Christ has died;
Christ is risen;
Christ will come again.
Christ will come again. We don't know when; even Jesus didn't know that. And we don't really know how, despite the claims of mssrs. LaHaye and Jenkins. But we are firm in the faith that he will come, at a time and in a way of His choosing.
From the readings from the First Sunday of Advent:
It is the hour for you to awake from sleep. For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed; the night is advanced, the day is at hand.
And:
So too, you must also be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come.
And so we prepare, for the celebration of Jesus' first coming, and for His second coming. And we hope - we celebrate hope itself embodied and lived. I am wrestling much just now with demons and darknesses of my own. But it's Advent. Soon to come is the birth of the One who was the Living Witness that our demons do not win, and that the Darkness cannot overcome Him.
Christ our God to earth descended
Our full homage to demand.
May we all have a holy and blessed Advent.
Thank you for hanging out for a few!
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Thanks be to God
There are days that are just made for reflection. Thanksgiving is one such. Thus, reflection on things for which I'm thankful.
I am incredibly thankful that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER. Yes, I do mean to be shouting that. It still excites me.
I am thankful for my faith, the Catholic faith, that sustains me and encourages me. I didn't come to the Catholic faith until I was verging on middle age, so I have been able to maintain a view different from the view of a "cradle Catholic". I had been considering joining the Church at the 1993 Easter vigil. But, in September of 1992 I was advised that I had developed a severe stenosis (closing, for those of us who don't speak doctor) of the aortic valve, and would need open heart surgery. That rather violently accelerated the consideration process, so on September 26, 1992 I received the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, anointing of the sick, and my first Eucharist. Yep. Pretty accelerated.
I am constantly thankful for my wife, my best friend, my lover, the mom to our kids. She has put up with me for 35 years, and living with me has not always been a bowl of cherries. I am trying, though, and Cindy does let me know that I'm more trying on some days than on others. I have no doubt that marriage is a gift from God, and my wife most certainly has been such. I love you, Cindy, and eagerly look forward to our next 35 years.
I am thankful for our five kids. They've had their rough spots, and some of them are in such patches even now. I pray for you daily. In your successes I see my successes and your shortcomings, such as they are, are a reflection of my own. You will come through this. I did. I love you, and will go to my grave (not soon, I hope!) knowing that I couldn't have been prouder.
Thank you, God, for grandkids - 12 so far, to be 13 in February - that are way cooler than any Papa could ever ask for. I love you. Vanessa, Jasper, Olivia, Kylie, Meri, Logan, Jada, Jordan, Payton, (soon-to-be) Autumn, Derek, Jessilynn, Megan - thanks. Just for being you, just for being my grandkids, and for making my life more alive. I love you just the way you are.
I am incredibly glad for the family I grew up with - for parents that had a set of values that they lived by, and imparted to us. They're both gone, and I bless their memory every day. (And, yes, I think I am a Coats. Of everyone in the family, I think I bear the most resemblance to Uncle Kenny. IMO.) I am thankful for my sister, Sheri, who is most definitely one of my heroes.
I am thankful for having been able to reconnect with high school classmates. I apologize for not having known way back in 1971 how much you were to be treasured. I do so now. UT '71 ROCKS!!!! At the same time, I am saddened by the growing list of our classmates who are no longer with us. This earthly life is finite - but I cling to the hope and the thought that life itself is not finite. God is infinite.
I am thankful for our son-in-law, Chris, currently deployed. The count of days over there on this deployment has dropped into double digits. May those days pass quickly, and may you return home safe to your wife and your four kids.
I am thankful that I was able to serve, in the Navy.
To friends and coworkers, past and present, (you know who you are!), you make and have made my work life wonderfully rich and engaging. I hope I've returned some of that. You're all miracles to me.
I'm thankful for sobriety. I'm coming up on the 25th anniversary of my last drink. Thank you, God.
To everyone in this posting, to all Facebook friends, coworkers, classmates: I love you dearly. I wouldn't ever say that'cuz - well, you know - but I do.
I am incredibly thankful that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER. Yes, I do mean to be shouting that. It still excites me.
I am thankful for my faith, the Catholic faith, that sustains me and encourages me. I didn't come to the Catholic faith until I was verging on middle age, so I have been able to maintain a view different from the view of a "cradle Catholic". I had been considering joining the Church at the 1993 Easter vigil. But, in September of 1992 I was advised that I had developed a severe stenosis (closing, for those of us who don't speak doctor) of the aortic valve, and would need open heart surgery. That rather violently accelerated the consideration process, so on September 26, 1992 I received the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, anointing of the sick, and my first Eucharist. Yep. Pretty accelerated.
I am constantly thankful for my wife, my best friend, my lover, the mom to our kids. She has put up with me for 35 years, and living with me has not always been a bowl of cherries. I am trying, though, and Cindy does let me know that I'm more trying on some days than on others. I have no doubt that marriage is a gift from God, and my wife most certainly has been such. I love you, Cindy, and eagerly look forward to our next 35 years.
I am thankful for our five kids. They've had their rough spots, and some of them are in such patches even now. I pray for you daily. In your successes I see my successes and your shortcomings, such as they are, are a reflection of my own. You will come through this. I did. I love you, and will go to my grave (not soon, I hope!) knowing that I couldn't have been prouder.
Thank you, God, for grandkids - 12 so far, to be 13 in February - that are way cooler than any Papa could ever ask for. I love you. Vanessa, Jasper, Olivia, Kylie, Meri, Logan, Jada, Jordan, Payton, (soon-to-be) Autumn, Derek, Jessilynn, Megan - thanks. Just for being you, just for being my grandkids, and for making my life more alive. I love you just the way you are.
I am incredibly glad for the family I grew up with - for parents that had a set of values that they lived by, and imparted to us. They're both gone, and I bless their memory every day. (And, yes, I think I am a Coats. Of everyone in the family, I think I bear the most resemblance to Uncle Kenny. IMO.) I am thankful for my sister, Sheri, who is most definitely one of my heroes.
I am thankful for having been able to reconnect with high school classmates. I apologize for not having known way back in 1971 how much you were to be treasured. I do so now. UT '71 ROCKS!!!! At the same time, I am saddened by the growing list of our classmates who are no longer with us. This earthly life is finite - but I cling to the hope and the thought that life itself is not finite. God is infinite.
I am thankful for our son-in-law, Chris, currently deployed. The count of days over there on this deployment has dropped into double digits. May those days pass quickly, and may you return home safe to your wife and your four kids.
I am thankful that I was able to serve, in the Navy.
To friends and coworkers, past and present, (you know who you are!), you make and have made my work life wonderfully rich and engaging. I hope I've returned some of that. You're all miracles to me.
I'm thankful for sobriety. I'm coming up on the 25th anniversary of my last drink. Thank you, God.
To everyone in this posting, to all Facebook friends, coworkers, classmates: I love you dearly. I wouldn't ever say that'cuz - well, you know - but I do.
Praise God from whom all blessings flow;
Praise God all creatures here below.
Praise God above, you heavenly hosts!
Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost!
Sunday, November 14, 2010
An addiction prism
There are several ways in which addictions are categorized.. One such is a contrast between "process addictions" and "substance addictions".
Substance addictions are what we usually associate with the term "addiction". Someone who starts smoking will have a very difficult time stopping. The body becomes accustomed to functioning with the substance, and does not easily adapt to the absence of the chemical. Nicotine has a powerful narcotic effect. Some alcoholics take years to develop their addiction, and some others were addicted with the first drink. Thus, the caution: THE ONLY DRINK (OR SMOKE, OR YOU NAME IT) OVER WHICH YOU KNOW YOU HAVE FULL CONTROL IS THE FIRST ONE YOU EVER TAKE! After that, it's a gamble.
Just to define a term I've thrown around quite a bit on this blog: Addiction. A common definition, and one that works for my purposes, is continued or intensified use of a substance or process in the face of escalating negative consequences. Someone knows a friend or relative who dies of lung cancer. They witness the whole painful process of dying of this disease. Still, they won't quit. Their line: "I'll quit when I'm ready." Um - OK. It would be nice to buy some food, but I gotta buy my smokes. Or beers. Or crack. Yeah, I'm sorry about my asthmatic kid, as the parent lights up. But, I'll quit when I'm ready.
And where, exactly, is the line crossed between use and addiction? At the point where you are no longer free to use a substance or not use it.
So far, this note has been about substance addiction. The other type of addiction is process addiction. Substance addiction is addiction to what you use. Process addiction is addiction to what you do.
Gambling addiction is the most obvious example of process addiction of which I am aware.
Can you be addicted to shopping? (I leave to you to answer.)
Exercise? Here's an example that comes to mind. On nice days - sunny, maybe 55 or 60 degrees - you see the joggers out in their Spandex suits. They're keeping fit, and that's well and good. On not-so-nice days - 35 degrees, windy, a cold cold rain-snow mix - the exercise addicts are still out in those Spandex suits. Those only concerned with keeping fit are aware that the Y or other places may have an indoor track, or they can walk the mall. But, no. Process addiction dictates that they must jog on the same route, wearing the same thing, at the same time every day. Never mind that no doctor, no trainer, no exercise physiologist would dream of recommending this.
Process addiction. Smokers and drinkers that have not smoked or drank for a few days are past the physical craving. They're not past the process addiction, though.
Consider marijuana. Advocates for the recreational use of marijuana say that there is no known narcotic in marijuana, and this may be true. (Carcinogens are another matter, but come on, we haven't outlawed tobacco, have we?) So, you don't get addicted to the substance. You do get addicted to the routine of rolling the joint, of firing up that herb, of puffing. . .Think that's not a powerful pull? People who use often develop symptoms such as difficulty breathing and/or damage to nose and throat. Despite the absence of a narcotic, they can't quit, even in the face of these consequences. Process addiction.
As I have noted frequently before, I have no finger to point. This battle has also been mine. I am an alcoholic - a gratefully recovering one, but still alcoholic. So, I apologize if I come across as judgmental. I have no judgment to make of anyone else. My objective is to point out that the subject of addiction is a very complex one, and addicts are very complex people. Also, most of us are addicts, and if someone knows you well enough they can tell you what your addiction is.
And never forget that there's hope. If you're caught up in some form of addiction, or if someone you know is, never ever let go of that lifeline called Hope. It's real.
Thanks for hanging out for a few! I'd love to know your thoughts.
Gotta go. The 9:00 Mass is calling.
Substance addictions are what we usually associate with the term "addiction". Someone who starts smoking will have a very difficult time stopping. The body becomes accustomed to functioning with the substance, and does not easily adapt to the absence of the chemical. Nicotine has a powerful narcotic effect. Some alcoholics take years to develop their addiction, and some others were addicted with the first drink. Thus, the caution: THE ONLY DRINK (OR SMOKE, OR YOU NAME IT) OVER WHICH YOU KNOW YOU HAVE FULL CONTROL IS THE FIRST ONE YOU EVER TAKE! After that, it's a gamble.
Just to define a term I've thrown around quite a bit on this blog: Addiction. A common definition, and one that works for my purposes, is continued or intensified use of a substance or process in the face of escalating negative consequences. Someone knows a friend or relative who dies of lung cancer. They witness the whole painful process of dying of this disease. Still, they won't quit. Their line: "I'll quit when I'm ready." Um - OK. It would be nice to buy some food, but I gotta buy my smokes. Or beers. Or crack. Yeah, I'm sorry about my asthmatic kid, as the parent lights up. But, I'll quit when I'm ready.
And where, exactly, is the line crossed between use and addiction? At the point where you are no longer free to use a substance or not use it.
So far, this note has been about substance addiction. The other type of addiction is process addiction. Substance addiction is addiction to what you use. Process addiction is addiction to what you do.
Gambling addiction is the most obvious example of process addiction of which I am aware.
Can you be addicted to shopping? (I leave to you to answer.)
Exercise? Here's an example that comes to mind. On nice days - sunny, maybe 55 or 60 degrees - you see the joggers out in their Spandex suits. They're keeping fit, and that's well and good. On not-so-nice days - 35 degrees, windy, a cold cold rain-snow mix - the exercise addicts are still out in those Spandex suits. Those only concerned with keeping fit are aware that the Y or other places may have an indoor track, or they can walk the mall. But, no. Process addiction dictates that they must jog on the same route, wearing the same thing, at the same time every day. Never mind that no doctor, no trainer, no exercise physiologist would dream of recommending this.
Process addiction. Smokers and drinkers that have not smoked or drank for a few days are past the physical craving. They're not past the process addiction, though.
Consider marijuana. Advocates for the recreational use of marijuana say that there is no known narcotic in marijuana, and this may be true. (Carcinogens are another matter, but come on, we haven't outlawed tobacco, have we?) So, you don't get addicted to the substance. You do get addicted to the routine of rolling the joint, of firing up that herb, of puffing. . .Think that's not a powerful pull? People who use often develop symptoms such as difficulty breathing and/or damage to nose and throat. Despite the absence of a narcotic, they can't quit, even in the face of these consequences. Process addiction.
As I have noted frequently before, I have no finger to point. This battle has also been mine. I am an alcoholic - a gratefully recovering one, but still alcoholic. So, I apologize if I come across as judgmental. I have no judgment to make of anyone else. My objective is to point out that the subject of addiction is a very complex one, and addicts are very complex people. Also, most of us are addicts, and if someone knows you well enough they can tell you what your addiction is.
And never forget that there's hope. If you're caught up in some form of addiction, or if someone you know is, never ever let go of that lifeline called Hope. It's real.
Thanks for hanging out for a few! I'd love to know your thoughts.
Gotta go. The 9:00 Mass is calling.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Reading
One of my Facebook friends has a widget on her blog from GoodReads. I love the feature, and someday soon I will - I really will - figure out how to import that widget onto my blog. Meantime, what I'm reading, or have just read. . .
(really, I should ask Vanessa or Jasper how to do this. Grandkids, 13 and 11 years old, respectively. They could probably enlighten me. When I was 13 LBJ was in the White House, our deployed troops were in the 'Nam, and if you'd told me that every house had a computer in it, I'd have thought you crazy.)
ANYWHOOO. . .what I've just read: A book by Richard Elliott Friedman, entitled Who Wrote the Bible? At first glance the title seems a bit ambitious. The Bible is a collection of books, spanning about 2000 years. Asking "Who wrote the Bible?" is like asking "Who wrote the public library?" The question doesn't, on its surface, make any sense.
Friedman addresses a narrower topic. He starts by describing the four-source theory. It's not an hypothesis; it has found general acceptance among biblical scholars. In accepting that as his starting point, Friedman does nothing original. The theory states that the Torah - the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy - were not, in fact, composed by Moses. Those who would insist that they were written by Moses are left to explain how Moses wrote the passage describing his own death, or why there would be two different accounts of the creation, two different accounts of Noah's flood, or other seeming anomalies. The answer, supported by the internal patterns of the writing, is that at least two different writers were involved.
As it turns out, there were four identifiable patterns - four different writing styles, four different theological approaches: the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Priestly, and the Deuteronomist. Friedman presents compelling evidence of this theory. But, then he takes it a step further. He tries to identify the exact writer, or at least the time and place when this writer lived, and which group he would have been associated with. Here, while I found his evidence and arguments persuasive, I did not find them conclusive. Still and all, a good read, and I'd recommend it to anyone who is serious about study of the Hebrew scriptures.
WHAT I'M READING NOW: At most times I have my bookmark in three or four books. Right now, one of them is Newman 101, by Roderick Strange. Those who would gain an acquaintance of 19th-century British civilization would do well to make Newman's acquaintance. So would anyone who would understand modern Catholicism. He is one of the heavyweights in both arenas. Like many philosophers or theologians, he is, at times, not particularly accessible; one would do well to read something about him before trying to read him. I'm looking forward to the read.
A second book is by Peter Gay: My German Question. Gay was born in Germany in 1923 to a Jewish family. In 1933 Hitler ascended to power. Mr. Gay emigrated from Germany in 1939. He describes aspects of being a Jewish youth in Germany during the first six years of the Third Reich. I have always found studies of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR fascinating. I'm constantly amazed at the willingness of the human animal, when it has unfettered control over any other group or individual, to exercise that control in the most cruel manner possible. See SLAVERY, AMERICAN. Or, NATIVE AMERICAN RESERVATION SYSTEM.
Love your thoughts. Love to know what you're reading. Thanks for hanging out for a few!
(really, I should ask Vanessa or Jasper how to do this. Grandkids, 13 and 11 years old, respectively. They could probably enlighten me. When I was 13 LBJ was in the White House, our deployed troops were in the 'Nam, and if you'd told me that every house had a computer in it, I'd have thought you crazy.)
ANYWHOOO. . .what I've just read: A book by Richard Elliott Friedman, entitled Who Wrote the Bible? At first glance the title seems a bit ambitious. The Bible is a collection of books, spanning about 2000 years. Asking "Who wrote the Bible?" is like asking "Who wrote the public library?" The question doesn't, on its surface, make any sense.
Friedman addresses a narrower topic. He starts by describing the four-source theory. It's not an hypothesis; it has found general acceptance among biblical scholars. In accepting that as his starting point, Friedman does nothing original. The theory states that the Torah - the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy - were not, in fact, composed by Moses. Those who would insist that they were written by Moses are left to explain how Moses wrote the passage describing his own death, or why there would be two different accounts of the creation, two different accounts of Noah's flood, or other seeming anomalies. The answer, supported by the internal patterns of the writing, is that at least two different writers were involved.
As it turns out, there were four identifiable patterns - four different writing styles, four different theological approaches: the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Priestly, and the Deuteronomist. Friedman presents compelling evidence of this theory. But, then he takes it a step further. He tries to identify the exact writer, or at least the time and place when this writer lived, and which group he would have been associated with. Here, while I found his evidence and arguments persuasive, I did not find them conclusive. Still and all, a good read, and I'd recommend it to anyone who is serious about study of the Hebrew scriptures.
WHAT I'M READING NOW: At most times I have my bookmark in three or four books. Right now, one of them is Newman 101, by Roderick Strange. Those who would gain an acquaintance of 19th-century British civilization would do well to make Newman's acquaintance. So would anyone who would understand modern Catholicism. He is one of the heavyweights in both arenas. Like many philosophers or theologians, he is, at times, not particularly accessible; one would do well to read something about him before trying to read him. I'm looking forward to the read.
A second book is by Peter Gay: My German Question. Gay was born in Germany in 1923 to a Jewish family. In 1933 Hitler ascended to power. Mr. Gay emigrated from Germany in 1939. He describes aspects of being a Jewish youth in Germany during the first six years of the Third Reich. I have always found studies of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR fascinating. I'm constantly amazed at the willingness of the human animal, when it has unfettered control over any other group or individual, to exercise that control in the most cruel manner possible. See SLAVERY, AMERICAN. Or, NATIVE AMERICAN RESERVATION SYSTEM.
Love your thoughts. Love to know what you're reading. Thanks for hanging out for a few!
Monday, November 1, 2010
Vote. Please.
I'm going to date myself here. I cast my first vote when I was 19. I voted - are you ready for this? - for Richard Nixon.
I haven't voted for any Republican for any office since then, and I'm not going to start tomorrow. There have been times when I truly couldn't stomach the Democrat. I wasn't going to vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980, but I wasn't going to throw my vote at Reagan, either. I voted for John Anderson that year. If I had to do it again, I might vote for Carter, or I might do exactly the same thing I did then. But Reagan, or any Republican? Never.
But that's not the thing I want to say in today's conversation, friends. What I do want to say:
Vote. (Got that?) VOTE!! K, try this:
Whether you are on the left side of the continuum, or on the right, please vote. Whether you agree with me or not, vote. Show up. Don't be one of those mental cowards who stay at home, then put a bumper sticker: "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him." I'd much rather face a lifetime of living with a government I don't agree with than live with a government that was selected by your voice being shut out or my voice being silenced (good luck with that!).
In South Africa, when blacks were given the right to vote, they stood in line for hours to exercise this right. They knew well what a precious gift this is. And we can't get 30% out?
Get out there. Please.
I haven't voted for any Republican for any office since then, and I'm not going to start tomorrow. There have been times when I truly couldn't stomach the Democrat. I wasn't going to vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980, but I wasn't going to throw my vote at Reagan, either. I voted for John Anderson that year. If I had to do it again, I might vote for Carter, or I might do exactly the same thing I did then. But Reagan, or any Republican? Never.
But that's not the thing I want to say in today's conversation, friends. What I do want to say:
Vote. (Got that?) VOTE!! K, try this:
VOTE!!!!!
Whether you are on the left side of the continuum, or on the right, please vote. Whether you agree with me or not, vote. Show up. Don't be one of those mental cowards who stay at home, then put a bumper sticker: "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him." I'd much rather face a lifetime of living with a government I don't agree with than live with a government that was selected by your voice being shut out or my voice being silenced (good luck with that!).
In South Africa, when blacks were given the right to vote, they stood in line for hours to exercise this right. They knew well what a precious gift this is. And we can't get 30% out?
Get out there. Please.
VOTE!!!!!
Thanks for hanging out for a few! Love ya!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)