Scratching the Curiosity Itch
One of the delights of not having to leave the house every weekday to go to school is that I am free to follow the prompts of my curious mind right then instead of putting them aside, risking the curious thoughts disappearing altogether before I've learned anything further. This free-wheeling pursuit of information does not always facilitate an orderly progression to the day, but I usually get around to whatever it is that needs to happen that day.
One thing I hardly ever do is sleep late. That would feel like a waste of time.
Yesterday I read in a gardening magazine that any rainwater collected for watering plants should be used promptly before the nitrogen in it disappears. I wondered if that's really necessary. How much nitrogen does rainwater contain? How fast does it disappear? Today I didn't find specific answers to these questions (although it does seem logical from what I've read that nitrogen does indeed eventually disappear from rainwater), but I did find some very interesting research results here. It's true that rainwater contains some nitrogen. It is especially concentrated in the first rain that falls after a long period of no rain. The nitrogen content in the atmosphere is apparently increasing, and more of it falls dissolved in rain than used to. While this may at first seem to be advantageous to plant growth, it does not promote plant diversity in plant communities. Those plants that respond more vigorously to the increase in nitrogen tend to overwhelm species that do not benefit from higher nitrogen levels. While the research was done in grasslands, evidence exists that the same effect occurs in forested areas.
An increase of nitrogen in the air and subsequently in rainwater is thought to be linked to the increase of emissions that are a by-product of two activities: combustion of fuel, and concentrated livestock production. Sigh. I had forgotten about these nitrogen sources. And now, this simple search has gone political on me.
Another thing I wondered about today was the differences between the terms ceramics, pottery, and porcelain. The correct answer is "not much." All of them are made from mixtures of clay and water. Porcelain was made first in China and is different from the other clay products in that it contains kaolin and becomes translucent after it is fired. Since porcelain was for a long time made only in China, porcelain was often used interchangeably with "china." Ceramics is the most general term and includes all the others. Pottery can be either stoneware (think pizza dough baking), or earthenware. Earthenware is still porous after firing unless it is glazed (clay flower pots); and stoneware is impermeable to water, even before it's fired. The firing temperature varies for each kind of ceramics. Porcelain is fired at temperatures up to 2600 degrees, stoneware at 2100-2300 degrees, and earthenware at 1700-2100 degrees. Apparently any of these items can be either handmade on a wheel or without a wheel, or they can be shaped by the use of a mold.
Today I also nailed down in my mind what it will take to recycle more of our household waste and made plans, designated collection containers and locations, and posted a sign with the information John Stutzman had referred me to yesterday. I sent my household members an email to tell them what the new expectations are. (Hey--they do read their email and I've remembered to inform them, with the benefit of being able to do it at my convenience.)
I also researched the writing class offerings at the University of Iowa, after I decided to buy a course that was taught by a professor from there for the Teaching Company. I learned that this university has a highly respected writing school, but they don't have online courses that I can see, and I'm not moving to Iowa to enroll in a master's program in their university. On to more modest endeavors--An Anabaptist History course at Faith Builders during their winter term? Hmmm. Still looks like a lot of money, and it's halfway across the country. Decision shelved for now.
Those wonderful knee socks I saw recommended by Missus Smarty Pants on the Flylady site turn out to not be the toasty warm types I'm visualizing. They're all nylon. Some nice colors though. Not ordering today.
The Green Harvest vitamins Judy told me about--She could probably tell me how to get that Green Harvest deodorant I saw on display at the Health and Wellness Expo. None of the other natural kinds I've tried have been spray-on, and for other reasons I wasn't overly impressed. I sent her an email inquiry--again at my convenience, awaiting an answer at her convenience.
My nephew Hans commented on my "Pro-Life Position" blog, and I need to do some more thinking and come up with a more extensive response. Joel says Greg Boyd and John Howard Yoder will have the best counter-arguments. I think that WordPerfect document of my own ruminations on the subject is just about to be massively upstaged. I've read both of these authors, but not very much very recently and I'm going to have to refresh my memory. This curiosity itch will require some deep scratching.
But let Hans have the last word? Hardly. Not without a challenge at least. (Help me out here, folks, or help him out if you must.) After all, I am almost three times as old as he is. True, he's a lot taller than I am, but I'm fatter, and I am the veteran of more arguments than he is. He's lived abroad more than I have, but I'm married to a foreigner--which of course are all patently foolish claims to credibility, but I'm taking what I can get here. Wish me luck.
Seriously, pray for us all to be open to truth. All of us need wisdom from God to be discerning and humble learners. Unless God and His truth are the foundation of our desire, knowledge and information merely puffs up, and the seeking of it is unprofitable, maybe especially so for those of us with over-sized loads of natural curiosity.
One thing I hardly ever do is sleep late. That would feel like a waste of time.
Yesterday I read in a gardening magazine that any rainwater collected for watering plants should be used promptly before the nitrogen in it disappears. I wondered if that's really necessary. How much nitrogen does rainwater contain? How fast does it disappear? Today I didn't find specific answers to these questions (although it does seem logical from what I've read that nitrogen does indeed eventually disappear from rainwater), but I did find some very interesting research results here. It's true that rainwater contains some nitrogen. It is especially concentrated in the first rain that falls after a long period of no rain. The nitrogen content in the atmosphere is apparently increasing, and more of it falls dissolved in rain than used to. While this may at first seem to be advantageous to plant growth, it does not promote plant diversity in plant communities. Those plants that respond more vigorously to the increase in nitrogen tend to overwhelm species that do not benefit from higher nitrogen levels. While the research was done in grasslands, evidence exists that the same effect occurs in forested areas.
An increase of nitrogen in the air and subsequently in rainwater is thought to be linked to the increase of emissions that are a by-product of two activities: combustion of fuel, and concentrated livestock production. Sigh. I had forgotten about these nitrogen sources. And now, this simple search has gone political on me.
Another thing I wondered about today was the differences between the terms ceramics, pottery, and porcelain. The correct answer is "not much." All of them are made from mixtures of clay and water. Porcelain was made first in China and is different from the other clay products in that it contains kaolin and becomes translucent after it is fired. Since porcelain was for a long time made only in China, porcelain was often used interchangeably with "china." Ceramics is the most general term and includes all the others. Pottery can be either stoneware (think pizza dough baking), or earthenware. Earthenware is still porous after firing unless it is glazed (clay flower pots); and stoneware is impermeable to water, even before it's fired. The firing temperature varies for each kind of ceramics. Porcelain is fired at temperatures up to 2600 degrees, stoneware at 2100-2300 degrees, and earthenware at 1700-2100 degrees. Apparently any of these items can be either handmade on a wheel or without a wheel, or they can be shaped by the use of a mold.
Today I also nailed down in my mind what it will take to recycle more of our household waste and made plans, designated collection containers and locations, and posted a sign with the information John Stutzman had referred me to yesterday. I sent my household members an email to tell them what the new expectations are. (Hey--they do read their email and I've remembered to inform them, with the benefit of being able to do it at my convenience.)
I also researched the writing class offerings at the University of Iowa, after I decided to buy a course that was taught by a professor from there for the Teaching Company. I learned that this university has a highly respected writing school, but they don't have online courses that I can see, and I'm not moving to Iowa to enroll in a master's program in their university. On to more modest endeavors--An Anabaptist History course at Faith Builders during their winter term? Hmmm. Still looks like a lot of money, and it's halfway across the country. Decision shelved for now.
Those wonderful knee socks I saw recommended by Missus Smarty Pants on the Flylady site turn out to not be the toasty warm types I'm visualizing. They're all nylon. Some nice colors though. Not ordering today.
The Green Harvest vitamins Judy told me about--She could probably tell me how to get that Green Harvest deodorant I saw on display at the Health and Wellness Expo. None of the other natural kinds I've tried have been spray-on, and for other reasons I wasn't overly impressed. I sent her an email inquiry--again at my convenience, awaiting an answer at her convenience.
My nephew Hans commented on my "Pro-Life Position" blog, and I need to do some more thinking and come up with a more extensive response. Joel says Greg Boyd and John Howard Yoder will have the best counter-arguments. I think that WordPerfect document of my own ruminations on the subject is just about to be massively upstaged. I've read both of these authors, but not very much very recently and I'm going to have to refresh my memory. This curiosity itch will require some deep scratching.
But let Hans have the last word? Hardly. Not without a challenge at least. (Help me out here, folks, or help him out if you must.) After all, I am almost three times as old as he is. True, he's a lot taller than I am, but I'm fatter, and I am the veteran of more arguments than he is. He's lived abroad more than I have, but I'm married to a foreigner--which of course are all patently foolish claims to credibility, but I'm taking what I can get here. Wish me luck.
Seriously, pray for us all to be open to truth. All of us need wisdom from God to be discerning and humble learners. Unless God and His truth are the foundation of our desire, knowledge and information merely puffs up, and the seeking of it is unprofitable, maybe especially so for those of us with over-sized loads of natural curiosity.
posted by Mrs. I at
9:49 AM
13 Comments:
Ah yes, my favorite nemesis John Howard Yoder. :-D I really must read his books so I can better answer the voluminous numbers of debate partners who wield him against me. I even had Lutherans in Jerusalem quoting him at me. He's probably my 5th cousin once removed on my dad's side...
By
Anonymous, at 11/08/2008
Yesterday, our local paper ran the following article. I am increasingly aware how many Anabpatists have bought into a very new (for Anabaptists) perspective gleaned "lock, stock, and barrel" from our Protestant friends. Many Anabaptists increasingly see themselves first as Americans, then Republicans, then Anabaptists. I find this both unsettling and very unfortunate.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas110608.php3
In addition, I might suggest the recently published book by Stephen Russell,"Overcoming Evil God's Way." Russell speaks directly to the issues under consideration. Thanks for a great read, Miriam.
By
Anonymous, at 11/08/2008
Gerald, I've read Steve's book already. Great book! I would take issue with only several insignificant snippets. Otherwise, I agree with it.
By
Anonymous, at 11/08/2008
Also Gerald, I would caution you about classifying anyone who disagrees with you or is in the least bit patriotic as "first as Americans, then Republicans, then Anabaptists" or as having their "perspective gleaned 'lock, stock, and barrel' from our Protestant friends".
To do so is a gross overgeneralization and is a bit of a cop-out as it simply dismisses your opponents' views without the necessity of a thoughtful, Bible-based response. The truth is, while there are many airheaded non-thinkers that hold every stance in the book (including the FB-approved, neo-Anabaptist one), there are many people that would disagree with aforementioned stance and would be glad to have a debate with Mr. Steve Russell himself on Biblical grounds. Mainstream Protestants would be most amused to have said people lumped into their camp--even my pacifist Lutheran friends were surprised at the radical-ness of my non-resistant position.
(Furthermore, "from our Protestant friends" is a non-sequiter because Anbaptists are by definition Protestant. (If you differ on this point, try reading The Anabaptist Vision by Harold S. Bender.) Though I have seen that unfortunate trend among Mennonites to bash "Protestants".)
As for that article, I am in full agreement. I don't think I'll change anyone's mind through legislation of morality. However, God's plan for government is for a government that imposes a level of morality on its citizens. (Read Romans 13 for God's manual for government.) All legislation has morality as its basis. I think it's my duty as a citizen to vote for the person whose legislation will most accurately reflect true morality. My goal is not saving souls--for that I go out and share the gospel. My goal in politics--which is very much a secondary realm--is simply an orderly, moral society whose laws are based upon true morality. Every two years, the government asks me how I would like to be governed and I give an answer. It's as simple as that.
By
Anonymous, at 11/08/2008
Hans,
If you really "must read [Yoder's] books so I can better answer the voluminous numbers of debate partners who wield him against me", it's probably a poor use of your time to do so. That approach is well-suited to reinforcing previously held ideas, but ill-suited to learning. A more efficient approach to the same end would probably be engaging in conversation with those holding shared opinions.
Re. "protestant" vs. "Anabaptist", I actually prefer Brad Gregory's "radical protestant" terminology for this third participant in the religious Reformations. I don't personally place great value in the "Anabaptist" brand, but the idea of belonging to a group that "holds forth" (protests) the message that the "root" (radix) of Christianity is still the essence of the Church: *that* is something I can get excited about!
Whatever the name, some unique tag seems appropriate for the school of thought that didn't view the state as a legitimate extension of the church or vice versa. If modern-day adherents of that view choose to use the term "Anabaptist", rather than "radical protestant" or "non-Roman-Catholic-who-thinks-church-and-state-shouldn't-be-in-bed-together", to distinguish that worldview from "that-other-non-RC worldview [or family of worldviews]", and if it's understood, it is correct and the distinction is real. Both are so by social consensus, the arbiter of language. In certain contexts, the need exists for shorthand reference to differing "Anabaptist" and "Protestant" (whatever you wish to call them) worldviews, and language has evolved to meet that need.
Although I realize that it's a bit of a cheap "appeal to authority", Dr. Gregory's "three broad religious traditions" in his Teaching Company course description and his research profile do, I think, at least provide some evidence of a linguistic need for more than a two-group segmentation scheme.
By
Anonymous, at 11/08/2008
Eldestson, I was speaking tongue-in-cheek about my manner of reading Yoder. I'll do my best to read it with an open mind.
And I would of course agree that Protestant/Catholic is too broad a classification for many purposes. However, whenever you get into classification, you have myriad systems of classification, each suited to certain contexts. Dr. Gregory's tripartite classification is composed of (apparently) two factors: theology and relationship with the state. If you use those specific criteria for classification, a tripartite classification is sensible. However, if you use more broad theological criteria, a two-part classification system of Protestant/Catholic makes more sense.
There is a nearly infinite number of systems of classification that can be used if one keeps drilling down. For instance, I am a:
Christian-->Protestant-->Radical Protestant-->Anabaptist-->Amish/Mennonite-->Beachy-->Middling to liberal end of Beachy Fellowship-->Hans' strange, unorthodox views
The context determines which (equally valid) system of classification I use. Obviously what I tell a Muslim who doesn't know much about Christianity or what I tell a Divinity major is going to vary.
I think it's perfectly valid to use different systems of classifications for different contexts and am perfectly happy when people do so. What I find jarring in its inaccuracy is when people talk about "the Protestants" as if they are somebody else. It's like a fighter jet mourning the fact that some other fighter jets are starting to think like aircraft. If the fighter jet mourns that FJs are acting like cargo planes, the FJ might have a point.
My point is, if you want to use a more narrow system of classification (an entirely legitimate exercise), then use the terms that match that more narrow system of classification. Protestant and Catholic are two very well established categories in an accepted system of classification. Don't try to redefine what they mean. Words are just words. There is no moral victory in redefining a word. Trying to change meanings of words hinders communication.
(As for the practical communication/naming issues regarding a tripartite classification which incorporates both broad theology and church/state relations as its criteria: The remaining problem seems what to call the non-radical/non-Anabaptist Protestants. (Both Catholic and Anabaptist/radical-Protestant* have recognized names.) I've used "mainstream Protestants" for some time. Any other ideas?)
* I personally prefer Anabaptist for contemporary conversations and "radical Protestant" or "radical Reformation" for Reformation history conversations. Radical Protestant is too unknown, IMHO, and has too straightforward a contemporary meaning (crazy Protestants) in absence of a historical context.
By
Anonymous, at 11/10/2008
Gerald, I feel I overreacted in comment #4. I apologize. You did not state that you were talking about me.
One caution does remain, and that is the perennial human tendency (of which I am the chief offender) of slapping labels and over-generalizations on people. I even engaged in it in my response cautioning against it! I slapped Gerald with the overzealous-Anabaptist-academia label with wrong views on certain points that I have identified as being held by most members of conservative Anabaptist academia. Silly me.
(Warning: Second to last sentence contains TIC and self-mocking comments.)
By
Anonymous, at 11/10/2008
Hans, you and I have had this debate often in the past 3 years and while many of my approaches to this view have changed and I am willing to let semantics be semantics, I still believe you are not understanding the counter-arguments.
Your ahistorical use of Bender's ahistorical synthesis as a trump card does not engage the debate. So I recommend that you do read Yoder soon so you can understand the trajectory of Bender's work. I'm not asking you to agree with JHY... not even I do that all the time.
I too applauded the Thomas piece. Gerald's not projecting something untrue but neither is he trying to engage the argument.. Functionally, his analysis is far too true.
Mrs I. I've never met you although I've enjoyed interacting with your sons and reading your writings. I hope you have fun with this topic.
By
Anonymous, at 11/10/2008
Javan, what am I missing?
By
Anonymous, at 11/10/2008
Hans,
Checking in after a Sunday break...
Re Yoder: fair enough.
Re. terminology: I actually agree with your preference, in practice, for using "mainstream Protestants" as the label for "the other non-Catholic group" when talking about the two groups; it increases explicit precision in communication. I agree as well that there's "no moral victory in re-defining a word". However, I'll still argue that depending on the context, it's legitimate to use "Protestant" as a contrast to "Anabaptist". Language, by its nature, changes, for both "good" reasons and "bad" ones. Words shift meaning depending on context. Words and meanings morph, and complaining about the fact is like trying to bail an incoming tide off the beach.
Our discussion provides an excellent illustration of linguistic change over time (and, to a lesser extent, across contexts) in our use of the word "radical". When I initially used the word, I took care to describe the meaning I intended, since that meaning wouldn't necessarily be immediately apparent to the casual reader. You like the word as well, but hesitate to use it in certain contexts because (my interpretation) the word's understood meaning changes in those contexts. My guess is that over time the word has gone through meanings something like this:
1. Relating to "the root"
2. Reaching into the past (the roots) for inspiration
3. "Radicalism", reform inspired by the past
4. Revolutionary
5. Exceptional, "cool", out of the norm, extreme.
If one uses the word "radical" as a compliment at a skate park, the meaning communicated is far different than when one uses the same seven letters to describe a Muslim (or Christian) activist, a large change in organizational direction, or a mathematical symbol. The meaning changes depending on context. Similarly, the meaning changes over time: the later definitions are "acquired" meanings. I'm guessing that if you told someone from early in the word's history that "X is a radical departure from tradition", you'd leave him scratching his head at the non-sequitur. As one other amusing example, it would have made perfect sense a number of years ago to say that "the computer got up to fetch a cup of coffee." We aren't talking about advanced robotics in the 1940s; we're talking about a guy with a slide rule.
A more specific example of the kind of context-sensitive meaning shift I'm talking about comes from my job. In my team, we're currently working with some thingamajigs that we call "universe-agnostic". Now, these "thingamajigs" have nothing to do with cosmology or physics, and they have nothing to do with a belief regarding the existence of God. However, "universe-agnostic" has a specific, agreed-upon meaning, and using the term "universe-agnostic" keeps us from having to describe their exact nature of the thingamajigs with a paragraph of text each time we reference them. Now, we got started talking about "universes" because we have another entity in the system, the (we'll say) "frobbit". The thing was, a system might have several frobbits, and each of those frobbits has multiple sub-entities--and those entities are called frobbits as well! To make matters even more interesting, we have yet another--totally unrelated--kind of entity that's also called a frobbit. And, in each case, "frobbit" (not really, OK?) is a universally recognized term for the entity in question.
Now, in the case of the frobbits we decided to reduce collision of definition by re-naming one of the entities. ("Universe" still is a decent name, if a bit more obscure.) I'm a computer guy, and I like precision. I like being able to talk about "radical Protestants" as a distinct group from "mainstream Protestants"; the parallelism is great. But, I think the quest to lock "Protestant", regardless of context, into meaning "the overarching family of non-Catholic Christian faith traditions finding its roots in the era of the Reformations" is a quixotic one. People involved in the communication generally know the meaning of the words employed, even if they disagree with the appropriateness of the usage (as you've demonstrated). I'll reserve judgement on whether this quest is more futile than my dreams of redeemed plurality for "data" and "media".
Anyway...the hour becomes late, and my thinking becomes garbled. I'll simply try a summary of what I'm trying to say. The meaning of a word is context-sensitive, and if a word's meaning is context-sensitive I'd say it's fair to use the word in the understood way. I'm also realizing that this is a bit of a fruitless (and sophistic? sophistric?) argument to be having, given that my preferences for avoiding "sloppy" usage of "Protestant" actually align with yours, and that I agree that carving out "our elite corner of Christianity" is a terrible idea--though I don't see "neo-Anabaptism" (at least the kind that takes the "following Jesus" pattern to bridge the gap between Jesus' incarnation and our lives) as doing that. And, I'm rambling writing long run-on sentences, and wanting desperately to get to bed, and don't forget to tell the spaghetti leaves to double-clutch the peanut butter.
By
Anonymous, at 11/10/2008
BTW, I wrote w/o reading the next post; haven't finished reading and doubt I'll absorb it fully, but it looks as though I could have left it for Mrs. I. :)
By
Anonymous, at 11/10/2008
"I'll reserve judgement on whether this quest is more futile than my dreams of redeemed plurality for 'data' and 'media'."
I was thinking of you and your quest when I used "criteria" as plural (three times) instead of singular.
By
Anonymous, at 11/11/2008
Just to make public a snippet of an email reply that I sent to Gerald acknowledging the stupidity of my over-reaction and an analysis of what analytical/logical mistakes I made:
"I was concerned about one comment in particular: 'Many Anabaptists increasingly see themselves first as Americans, then Republicans, then Anabaptists.' With one swipe it seemed you relegated these people to, what it seems to me from the way I read the Bible (correct me if I'm wrong), not being born-again followers of Christ. Any time we have an allegiance to something other than Christ at the top, we aren't followers of Christ. That's how I read it. However, with some less hot-tempered contemplation, I realize that there are certainly layers (and layers within layers) of allegiance and it's a very complex issue (an example being any form of sin whatsoever: any time we sin at all, we are holding--in some small way--our allegiance to self/sin/etc above our allegiance to Christ, even though that may not be our ultimate allegiance) being talked about in a very concise way. And talking about it in a concise way is not a bad thing. (In fact, I see it is quite a wise thing!)"
"...my fault in misreading and overreacting. I hope one of these days I'll grow up and have even-tempered, thoughtful responses to people!"
By
Anonymous, at 11/11/2008
Post a Comment
<< Home