A Taste for More

You and I are sensate creatures, but just barely.

At the core of who we are, we are hard-wired with a desire to have our senses engaged, pleasurably so. And not just to a small degree - we want to have full and rich sensations which keep pace with our capacities.

Just think of the vital role in our lives played by simple things such as music, beauty, the flavor of food, and the smells and textures of the world. Without them, wouldn't life be a cruel march to the grave? Simple existence just isn't enough for human kind, we want richness and depth. It's how we're made.

I recently heard a story on public radio about the importance of and distinctions between taste and smell. The doctor being interviewed dealt with patients who had lost most or all of their capability to smell. Most of them due to some kind of brain trauma or disease. This loss was life-altering.

For many of these unfortunate people, two things came as a result; depression and paranoia.

Much of the depression in their lives was tied to food - which, if you think about it, is a major component of daily life, in time, energy and attention. As it turns out, around 90% of food's bouquet, aroma and flavor - most of the experience really - is tied up in smell, not taste. Taste works on a more rudimentary level, dealing with texture and general food information. (salty, sweet, bitter, sour...etc)

Without smell, everything is like oatmeal - the unflavored kind. Bland and unappealing. You and I are probably unaware of just how much joy is derived from the experience of eating. (And may we never know, if loss is the only way to know the extent!)

The paranoia set in, they said, through fears stemming from a lack of info. Did I bathe adequately, or do I have severe body odor? Is this milk bad? Is this meat putrid? What if something catches on fire and I can't smell it? Could there be a gas leak in my house?...etc. You can't be sure about those things without the ability to discern scent, and you can see how paranoia would creep in if you couldn't.

All this just from the loss of the ability to smell!

I write all this to reinforce this thought: Our senses are an absolutely critical component to our well being, and our enjoyment of life.

Now, let me propose something. Something simultaneously horrible and thrilling.

What if you were born with almost no sense of smell (and therefore taste)? You wouldn't really understand what you were missing. Someone could try to explain to you what more there might be. That would be horrible, even if you didn't really realize what you were missing. Horrible because you were so far away from what you are capable of experiencing.

But what if some brain surgeon could fix the problem? What if, after years of eating food that never had taste, the next day you could enjoy the full experience of the culinary arts?! You would be overwhelmed and shocked - and thrilled to no end! Every new food would be a symphony of joy and sensation. (with the notable exception of lima beans, which are irredeemable.) Adjectives would abound!

What if that's us - the whole human race? But the damage is not limited to the sense of smell... it effects every physical sense and every aspect of our lives - physically, mentally and spiritually. This means we might not even know there is anything wrong with us, and we're used to living this way - in a starkly limited capacity. There would be so much more we'd be capable of, if everything was as it should be. Someone could try to explain to us what the full restoration would be like, but the words would fall short since we have so little context. Horrible!

This is the reality of living in a world that is damaged - a world that has been cursed. In biblical terms - a "fallen" world, detached from God and distorted from what it was meant to be. We, because we are also fallen and damaged, don't know what it's like to be fully as we were meant to be either - fully human, meeting our fully capacity physically, mentally and spiritually. Because he knows, God could describe to us what that might look and feel like, but the words would be lost on us. What a sad state.

Here again is the thrilling part: What if we can be restored?

Think about that proposition just in the context of deadened physical senses: If we all experience our senses now at a tiny, tiny fraction of our full capacity, yet we still derive intense joy and pleasure at that meager level, how much more pleasurable and joyful would complete sensation provide? It would be indescribable!

Try to recall the most savory, rich and abundantly wonderful food you've ever had. Relive those first few seconds of experience and sensation, the surprise at its excellence, your delight as more and more of its complexities and flavors reveal themselves to you. You linger on it, savoring that first bite - utterly pleased and satisfied for one delicious moment... but it's only a moment.

What if that moment could be magnified exponentially? A thousand times? A million times? In intensity, quality and duration? Would you want that? Shoot, I would. Words would not describe that level of pleasure - elation, rhapsody, rapture, bliss, thrill, ecstasy? Nothing would capture it.

I want that kind of pleasure bonanza. I really like those moments of deep joy. I'd love more - especially if it was massively better! If that is restoration, that's what I want. Add to that the idea that it's not only our physical senses that would be restored, but every aspect of our person. Everything would be amazingly intensely better and ridiculously shockingly good. All of life would be elation after elation. (and magically delicious)

Next question: when you think of Heaven, what comes to mind? Fogginess maybe? Mistiness, perhaps? (London in Winter?) Boring, probably. But not intensely thrilling. Deeply pleasing, Pervasively enjoyable. (To be fair, there isn't too much detailed description about what Heaven - restored creation and humanity - would look like. Like trying to explain ripe, fresh strawberries to someone whose palate can only perceive texture, perhaps any detailed descriptions would amount to words wasted?)

I wonder about what restoration of our full personhood would look like. The Bible is pretty clear that we live in a world that is cursed, and we are as well. Death and rot pervade. But this is not as it was intended, and God will one day restore things to the way they were meant to be. (for those that love him and want restoration - but it's on His terms.)

I'm theorizing about the extent of our diminished ability to sense and feel, and what the reversal might look like, but here's the real point - shouldn't we want that change? Shouldn't we long for restoration - once we're aware it's available?

(Totally Parenthetical Get-Me-In-Hot-Water-Thought: Sometime, I'd like to have a conversation with the deaf community about their reluctance to restore hearing to deaf folks, and shunning of those who do. I know it's a tight culture of sorts, but, very respectfully, I can't understand why individuals would pass on restoration of their hearing when it's possible. Are there any other disability groups that are so unwilling to let go of what they do not have?? If you gain what was lost, must you lose what you've got?)

Too often most of us are easily satisfied with our present deadened state. We chase after our diminished and broken (and sometimes inappropriate) means of satisfaction and experience when so much more is offered. Perhaps it's ignorance, perhaps it's fear of the surgeon's knife? We tend to not let go of what we have, good or bad, for what is not fully known. But here I am stepping on a popular quote from C.S. Lewis. He is talking about rewards given for behavior here, but I think it dovetails with my point. Why not let him speak:

Indeed, if we consider the
unblushing promises of reward and the
staggering nature of the rewards promised
in the Gospels, it would seem that Our
Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but
too weak. We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased.

"The Weight of Glory" - you should check it out, whatever you may believe.
Read the entire piece here: http://www.doxaweb.com/assets/doxa.pdf

In any case, my point is that we tend to have a bland view of what a restored world might hold for us. Peace and tranquility - sure, but we rarely consider that we will be fully ourselves again, and we were obviously intended to experience (if we just talk about the physical stuff) sights, smells, textures, sounds and tastes - far, far, FAR more fully than we do now. We rarely view Heaven in terms of richness, intensity and depth of those sensations, much less everything else. We make it boring. We should want more than we have, because in reality we have so little.

Nor should we want less! Some religions tell us that the way to happiness, or "oneness" or the goal we should strive for should be the abolition of our desires. Whoa! Not what I want! Quite the opposite. To borrow a line from my favorite band; "I want to feel and then some, I have five senses, I need thousands more - at least!" (Over the Rhine, The World Can Wait)

I want more, not less.

But more isn't only what I want. I don't want every feeling and sensation to simply be intensified. What I really want is intensification of joy and reduction (actually elimination) of pain and sadness and evil, not just higher highs and lower lows. (And herein lies a whole big topic of why no everyone goes to heaven and holiness and justice and sin and not-so-fun stuff. )

Is restoration something you want? Do you have a taste for more?



I don't have a tidy wrap up for these thoughts. And, for better or worse, there's more that could be brought out of this line of thought. But I'd love to know a couple things from you (O imaginary readers).

How happy do you want to be? Seriously.

What would you be willing to give to get there?

(Christians) Do you think there is something wrong with desiring happiness, or more intense joy and pleasurable experience? Why/Why not? How could unleashing those desire help? How could they hurt?

When you think of the concept and prospect of Heaven, what comes to your mind? Be honest.

What do you do with the reality of our mixed nature? We want good things, but we're bad too. How do you justify being part of a restored world? How do you know now where true and lasting satisfaction and happiness lie? (there are tons of counterfeits!)

Love to know your thoughts.

Spanglish

I've been watching a lot of children's television lately.

I've got a growing family, and the little ones like the morning cartoons. We let them watch public television because, frankly, most of the "kids" cartoons these days are just bad. Super violent, anti-adult and FRENETIC. Crazy constant ridiculous pace. It's no wonder kids can't pay attention to anything.

And then the commercials! Wow. They simply don't need to watch those. Since they don't, my kids aren't aware of how unhappy and unsatisfied they must be. Surely they must be unhappy and unfulfilled! If only they had xxxxxx. Over and over. Blah.

Anyhow, Public TV stuff is great. Nice shows, no commercials. But one growing trend has me scratching my head a little bit. Its seems that many of the shows want my kids to learn Spanish.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd love for my kids to learn another language. I myself know just enough Spanish to get by - which has been pretty handy on several occasions. Spanish is a wonderful language, and I've found Spanish speaking peoples (generally) to be warm and welcoming.

But I'm not really sure about the intent of having morning cartoons, and especially the little "educational spots" in between shows, highlighting and teaching the Espanol Equivalents to English words and phrases. Why are they trying to teach my kids Spanish?

Is the goal to make the Spanish speaking population feel more welcomed and comfortable? To make the English speaking kids more accepting of the Spanish speaking population?

It's not really a big deal, but I am curious about the purpose of it. It's presence doesn't really bother me too much, but I can't clearly tell the intent the producers and writers have from watching it.

Maybe I'll ask write a letter and ask them some preguntas. (that's Spanish for questions)

the Fact of Faith

With the movie "Expelled" coming out, there is bound to be some reaction - even if for just a little while. Until the next celebrity stunt, political gaff or overly-reported tragedy.

With that in mind, I thought I'd throw out an idea about the concept of faith, and how it's far more a fundamental part of our lives, whether you are religious or not, than most people suspect. Let's start by defining some terms...

Here are some definitions of faith;
Oxford English Dictionary: Faith - noun 1. Complete trust or confidence
Dictionary.com: Faith - 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Here's a generalization, but it's generally true. Scientists and naturalists, for the most part, say that faith is blind; that it is the belief in something despite a lack of evidence, or - some might say in spite of the evidence. Mostly they are talking about religious faith, which, for most in their camp equates to someone choosing to believe that something (God, supernatural, spiritual...etc) exists even though there is no evidence or proof for it. To them, these people are to be pitied, or educated, or in some cases committed.

Blind faith. I think that is the phrase that many equate to belief. But let's step back a second and think about the nature of facts, knowledge and faith - especially their relationships to each other.

I don't like the Oxford definition above, because I think that the idea of complete confidence isn't really a reality for most people. In fact, I don't think that anyone operates on that level of confidence - if their honest.

Here's why - we're finite, and we therefore have limited knowledge. Really limited, if you care to think about it. Of all the information in all the universe, a brash claim is that we would even know a tenth of 1 percent of it all. No way.

So when we say we have a certain knowledge of facts, we're making an inherently limited (but assumably reasonable) claim. We can't gather information about something, for instance - a physical 'law' like gravity, in all possible places, times, conditions and circumstances. We never have a complete picture or truly comprehensive knowledge.

This doesn't mean we don't have knowledge, just that it's not complete. We can make reasonable assumptions and assertions based on repetition and consistency and therefore operate on a principle or law assuming it is true, but we can't say definitively that something like gravity is always as we observe it here and now - because we cannot test that claim in all places, in all times and under all circumstances. We have knowledge about the world around us, but it is inherently limited in it's scope.

Here we are even speaking about things like cold, hard science. Every theorem and experiment rests squarely on the shoulder of assumption. Reasonable assumptions for the most part. The chemist assumes that oxygen will behave in a certain way in certain circumstances, that a combination of two elements will achieve a certain reaction, that chemical X will behave as it has in the past in the same situation. Does the chemist absolutely know? No, not really. But he is reasonably confident it will, otherwise he won't be mixing potentially deadly ingredients together.

Or scientifically, let's push a little father out of the lab. The reason good science is good is because it has been tested and refined to a very high degree of consistency. Assumptions are then a pretty safe bet. When we shoot a spacecraft off to another planet, I doubt that the project includes repeated tests and experiments to determine the force of gravity that the Earth imposes. We don't keep checking the mass of the planet and prove every time how big it is and how much it weighs. That data has been collected, tested and refined to a point where NASA probably just has some data on hand which it adds to the plan. There is trust that the data - which they themselves have not produced and tested - is good and correct.

Here's what I think faith is: reasonable trust based on incomplete knowledge.

If you'll accept that definition of faith, then let's agree that faith is a part of everyone's life - yes even the noble scientists.

There's a balance between both ends of that equation. Knowledge means that there is information collected - it's not complete, and so there is a chance that it doesn't conform exactly to reality - i.e. that the knowledge is untrue. But it's gathered and used to process our action. The extent of that knowledge and it's nearness (or distance) to comprehensiveness will then, if we are reasonable, effect our level of trust.

For example - should I walk out on the icy pond?

My knowledge is incomplete. I don't know if it will hold me for sure. But I know that it's been pretty cold for the last week. I assume that water generally begins to freeze around 32 Fahrenheit. I see that it is frozen all the way to the edge. It looks thick. I weigh 200 pounds. But I can't know for sure if it will hold my wait.

My trust level should be informed by reason. If all the information I have seems to be accurate and compelling to me that it will be safe, I'll enter into an action reflecting faith, or trust. I'll walk out. But if my data is less sound. (there was a warm-up this weekend...the ice looks a little thin) I might not be willing to take an action of faith. I might opt for more information gathering - like throwing a heavy rock out or putting some of my weight on the edge and observing.

In the reasonability component there is also the element of risk vs gain. I have much more to lose when crossing an icy lake than when, say, trying a new flavor of yogurt. But put one of my children out on the ice, badly hurt, and my reasonable level of risk will change.

When things go wrong is when faith is unreasonable, or when the an action or belief is reasonable, but the information and assumptions were far from reality.

Unreasonable faith is the realm of insanity or delusion. That's trust and action DESPITE the information, despite the risk. I knew a mental patient that could verbalize that eating random mushrooms may kill him, but he ate them anyway. (he lived, but still didn't see the connection) That's an unreasonable action.

Reasonable faith can still result in a very poor outcome. Take for instance the 2 crane collapses this year in New York City. Workmen loaded and used the cranes - which passed inspection - and reasonably operated in faith that all would work as it should. Their actions, though completely sensible, resulted in calamity because the reality was very different than their information and assumptions. The inspectors either overlooked problems, or worse - turned a blind eye to them.

So, all day, you and I take faith-based actions. Whenever I choose something, unless something is wrong with my ability to process and evaluate, I am exhibiting trust at some level in the information I have, which is not complete.

The bigger questions then become:
How incomplete/sufficient is my knowledge?
How reasonable is my trust in what I know?


Parenthetical thought: (the opposite of reasonable faith would be unreasonable fear. Healthy people don't operate this way. I could live in total fear all the time because of my limited knowledge. Do I know for sure that no burglar will enter my house while I sleep? Do I know for sure that a fire won't start in the living room? Do i know for sure that no meteor may crash into my office while I work? Do I know that someone on a cell phone might cross the yellow line and hit me? That my hamburger isn't laced with poison? That my phone isn't tapped? No. No to all. I don't know for sure that these things won't happen. But they are unlikely. I take small precautions like locking my door, installing smoke detectors and paying attention when I drive. But I don't live in a bunker, I don't distrust everyone. That we don't know anything for absolutely certain shouldn't completely prevent us from any action. It just means we take precautions about the more likely risks, or small efforts toward unlikely events [life insurance] and know that the rest is rare and nothing that should debilitate us. If we can't make that distiction we're back to the mental hospital or in a life of reclusive internal self-incarceration.)

So all that being said - let's turn to Religion.

If faith is a component of everything we do, religious belief shouldn't be any different. The major mistake people make is in assuming that only in the realm of spirituality and religion is there no information available to make reasonable decisions.

The fact gathering may look a little different than something like genetics, but not unlike other things we trust in - like the fact that Abraham Lincoln was a president. I have no personal experience with that - just information from others who were there, and corroboration.

Religious Faith is just a sub-category of faith in general, but the same principles apply. What information do you have? How reliable is it's source? Are there others who will corroborate the information?

Where science and religion really have their differences is not really in the realm of reasonability - it's in the area of presumption about what constitutes valid information, which is a whole different topic. (of volumes of books)

Naturalism would say that the physical is all there is and there can be nothing more. Religions - in particular Christianity - would say that there is also an immaterial, super-natural aspect to the world with a very real God at the center of it all. Your presumptions about that will play a major role in what information you consider to be valid and what choices you will make.

And when you evaluate the risk versus gain factor, this becomes the most important matter in our lives. Our lives here and now, and our next life - if indeed there is one - will be fundamentally accurate or catastrophically wrong based on what we assume about the nature of reality and the faith-based-actions (which is really all there is) which we make as a result.

No reasonable faith comes without information - but information needs to be tested. To walk through life giving it no thought, no evaluation at all is too big of a risk. It's a blind walk across a barely frozen pond.

It's Elementary

I saw a "readability rating" graphic on a friend's blog. Apparently this website checks your blog's readability level and determines how smart you have to be to comprehend it. So I did it for mine.

What I was hoping for was this:



That would be nice, wouldn't it? To have a blog that you have to be a genius to appreciate? Ego stroking - yeah.

Of course, what I actually got was this:



Hmm. Should I be disappointed? Insulted?

Should I up the difficulty of my verbiage? Reduce amicability toward the puerile? Aim for more esoteric and enigmatic synthesis and structuring within my circumlocutory sentiments, expressed herein?

Nah. Let the 3rd graders come and weigh in, if their moms let them.

Almost Shocking

Wow. It's been a while since I smelled that smell.

I have a studio art degree and during my college years I enjoyed a wide variety of classes in the fine arts. One that was particularly fun, given my penchant for pyromania, was sculpture. Why? Because they had arc welders. Big old welders that could easily weld together thick hunks of steel. Nothing quite like welding - it's an all senses experience; the crackling sound, the eerie light through the visor, the sensation of heat and tiny bits of very recently molten steel bouncing off you (mind the hair!) and the smell. Hard to describe the smell. Kind of an ionized, burnt-air smell. You can even taste it in the air.

Anyhow - that's what my kitchen smelled like today. Actually, with the exception of the heat and molten bits, I was taken back to the bowels of the art building. Wow.

A few years ago we replaced the plugs in our kitchen. Still not sure quite how the guy before us wired it all - weird. I'm no expert either. But above our sink there was a little flouresant light that never really worked. I was 99 and 44/100 % sure that when we redid the outlets, we cut the line to the light. Oops.

So - life lesson learned. Always assume that the wires are live, and kill the breakers. I didn't.

Wanting to take that light out to make room from some wine glass hanger things ("things" the verbal equivalent of large gap filling foam, while we're in the hardware/homeowner theme)
I grabbed my trusty Cutco Super Shears, which really are amazing. They cut through anything. Then, with 99.44% confidence, I went for both the black and white electrical wires in one shot.

It was SPECTACULAR.

Happily, I was unharmed. Unshocked - electrically speaking, but shocked by the eerie light, crackling and that certain smell. Unexpected. I was also a bit wide eyed to see the state of my super shears. There are high carbon steel, and are at least 1/8th of an inch thick on each side at the cutting surface. It's been a while since I've seen such nice arc marks. Check it out:

Hooray for non-conductive plastic handles. Brilliant!

Not that I have any readers, but if you are counting that's two molten metal accidents here at my house. (see the grill entry a year or so back) At least ones that are worthy of blogging. I wonder what will complete the hat trick?

So tomorrow, when I go to cap those two wires, before I try to strip the wire you better believe I'll be shutting down the breaker to the kitchen - to the whole house might be better. Or the neighborhood.

Drug Free School Zones?

What's the deal with some signs?

Most signs have a directly discernible intent, whether it be to advertise a business, or inform a driver, or give direction.

There are some signs though, that I'm not really sure about. I see one of them around quite a bit. It's the "Drug Free School Zone" sign. You've seen it. (here's an iStockphoto of one)

I don't really understand this.

Who is this for? What's the purpose of such a sign? Is it true?

If this is meant to be a statement of location or condition, akin to "This is the Santa Fe Trail" then how do I even believe it? Is this school zone really drug free? How do they know that it's true? Do they regularly do drug screenings? Go house to house and make sure everyone is clean? Just putting up a sign doesn't make it so.

And who is this for anyway? Passers by, homeowners, school kids...drug dealers? Assuming that the function of a sign is to inform, it's hard to know just who the audience for this one is.

In terms of supply and demand, this could be an advertisement for nefarious characters. "Hey, we've got no drugs here in this area... the market is wide open for you, the drug dealer looking to expand your market, and there's no competition here yet - hence the sign ... welcome!"

Wouldn't it be more effective and honest if there were a sign like "increased drug law enforcment area" or "drug related offenses doubled" or something. It's the drug free part that seems silly to me. The sign just sits, whether a drug deal is happening right there or not.

If it's talking about a law - well, in terms of illicit and illegal drugs, aren't all zones of the US supposed to be drug free? (Unless, perhaps, you're a peyote toting Native American) This sign doesn't really create or inform of any special laws that I'm aware of. Why create a sign like this? It's not like there are signs for "Drugs OK School Zone." Like designated smoking location. This is a Dooby Do Zone. Go ahead, pot head. Mmm-no.

So, I don't get it. It's it just wishful thinking? Saying something in the hopes that it will self-produce that happy state? Not sure.

Just a small question. One of those things around that I don't really understand, but thought it would be nice to not understand it together. Not that anyone is reading this.