Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
I Corinthians 13:4-7
Time flies when you’re having fun. My wife & I became a couple 9 years, 1 month, and 6 days ago, proving that occasionally I am wise enough to make a good decision.
One of the benefits of marriage is experiencing things you never thought you would want to.
Spoiler warning : pine green
Feline warning : RED
This past year we have acquired two very adorable kitties, Oliver & Sophie. I used to say stuff like, “cats? They’re great on the BBQ” and I refused to contemplate inviting an animal to live in my home. I’m messy enough without having to pick up after them. People would ask, “But what about children?” and this still frustrates me. Pets are not people, not on a legal, biological, evolutionary or ethical level. And one would hope that eventually your children would learn how to empty their own litter box.
That said, I love my kitties, and I believe that they love me in their own special way. Can I prove that is a sign of affection when Sophie licks my nose at 4 am, instead of just an evolutionary trick to get food from a gullible human? No, but I believe it’s affection. Can I prove that Oliver likes me when he demands we play together, right now. Or that they like my company when they seek me out, just to nap where I’m at. Or when Oliver head butts me, while purring, at 5 am. I think it is love, when Sophie walked up to me, dropped a piece of cat food and started purring. (I pretended to eat it.)
One of the challenges, (or benefits for mental flexibility) is trying to understand inter-species communication. When Oliver looks at me & meows, usually it means he wants to play, within seconds or he will attack my head or ankles. And he has me trained to open the bathroom door and help him with the bathtub faucet, so he can drink the tastiest water ever. I wonder if this is what it will be like when we finally meet the aliens, no real clue what is going on.
And it is very entertaining for us to imagine possible kitty thoughts & conversation. It’s a way for grown-ups to play pretend. And doesn’t everyone need more play.
I suspect it is easier for the kittens and I to communicate, than for humans and God. I wonder if that’s how God feels about us, “sure, they’re self-centered, and always make messes, and only talk to me when they want something, but aren’t they cute? I think they love me in their own limited way.”
1) Is there free will?
2) What if women were as physically strong as men?
3) What is the difference between life & death?
spoiler warning : "Prussian Blue" aka "Midnight Blue"
Is there free will? Or are we just genetically programmed to react in a predisposed manner, to believe we are free to choose when we aren’t. We don’t think of babies having free will when they are born, their bodies just do stuff, they follow their body’s urges, they might even react to the environment, but does an infant make the conscience decision, “right now I will cry”? When someone is chemically imbalanced, do they have free will? Or are they mentally incapacitated, to use the legal term?
We are made up of biology, which is made up of chemistry. Chemicals do not make decisions. They follow chemical reactions.
In “Can the Mind Just be a Machine” Hille states that humans used to think that our planet was special, at the center of the universe. Then Darwin showed we were biologically no different from animals. Perhaps now we will find out that we are not any different than a chemical machine.
Crazy thought, what if God does play dice with the universe, and in doing so, that is where free will comes in? Quantum mechanics is crazy, and I have no clue what it’s about, but I have heard that in QM there is a certain amount of uncertainty.
(Side note: If we are simply complex chemical reactions, then art can be reduced to a formula. And we can judge the quality of art by the formula.)
And just because we aren’t smart enough to think of the answer, doesn’t mean the answer doesn’t exist. Try explaining irrational numbers to a snail.
What if, on average, women were as physically strong as men? How would society be different? How would human history be different? Would women then be just as violent as men? Would the equal rights be a given?
Speaking of chemical reactions, what is so special about the death process that it can not be reversed? Awhile ago, chemists proved there is nothing inherently special about organic compounds when the made one (ureic acid, I think) in the lab. They did the famous building of proteins experiment. Why haven’t we been able to take some chemicals off the shelf, mix them together, and create life?
"The Soprano Sorceress" by L.E. Modesitt Jr, basic premise, a small time opera singer is magically teleported to another world, a world where song creates magic. I give this book a D+.
"Replay" by Ken Grimwood, basic premise, a 43 year old man is magically teleported back to his earlier life, taking over the body of his younger self, but remember all he had learned, knowing what will happen. And this happens more than once. I give this book a C.
...spoiler warning : Maroon.
Both of these books deal with a normal person, finding them selves dealing with extreme culture shock. There are no rational explanations, they just have to deal. Both of these books are about the protagonists having escapist thoughts, and escaping in a much stranger way than they could have predicted. And who among us hasn't wanted to escape and have great power at some point in our lives?
Neither of the protagonists freaked out very much. I think a normal person would freak a little if they woke up back in time, or a sorceress. Or atleast think, "am I crazy?" Both books deal with this for a few pages, but our heroes soon accept the proof that even though things are wacky, they are perfectly sane. Hasn't it been said, a crazy person doesn't think they are crazy? Bad mental health transitions for both authors.
"Soprano" is about power corrupting, or at least that is what is preached at us. Power corrupts, and that's bad! But is our heroine is corrupted? No-no, not at all, and when she does something terrible it's because the bad guys gave her no choice. More than a couple of times she appoints herself judge & executioner. This could be forgivable in the beginning, when she doesn't know how to use her powers, but by the third time of her fretting over having been forced to use deadly terrible force, you would think she could have found a subtler way. Oh well, what did I expect, she is a soprano after all. And finally, where the heck did she get the ability to stay calm in battle? Just natural I guess. It was kinda boring, kinda a chore to finish it.
"Replay" is about knowing then, what you know now. Easy, buy Microsoft stock. But for all of the cash the hero makes, not once in the book does the IRS look funny at him. Within the first year he makes big fat crazy money off a couple of sport bets, and no real issues there from either the mob or the feds. A question brought up is, who are your friends, are they the biological person, or the person you've went through experiences with together? "50 first dates" does a much better job of showing, what would it be like if you had to meet someone over and over again. It wouldn't necessarily work out the same way twice. The book dealt poorly with relationships, and the female characters seem one dimensional, although in they sometimes change dimensions in different replays. Maybe the character wasn't good at relationships, it seems the only way he could show gratitude to those he was emotionally indebted to was by giving stock tips. I read it quickly, but it wasn't good.
How would you change the world if you had great powers? Modesitt's heroine seeks to solve all the world's problems with broad strokes of power.
Grimwood's hero goes for more money, and more sex.