Archive for the 'echo' Category

Bagels

January 18, 2014

Jordan is teasing me to blog about the bagels he brought home yesterday, and I’m up for the challenge.

So Jordan brought home half a dozen bagels and some cream cheese spread with scallions, late yesterday afternoon, from Finagle a Bagel.

The day before, I had found myself eating naan with tzatziki sauce.  (That’s an Indian bread and a Greek yogurt spread with garlic and dill (and often cucumbers)).

I love a good echo.

I have no idea whether Jordan was aware of what I had been eating, and I have no idea why he bought the bagels or whether he is even aware of what’s in the tzadiki sauce, even if he noticed the package in the fridge.

What I actually did wonder, when I stumbled on my combination, is whether there’s an Indian equivalent of tzadiki sauce that is eaten with naan.

Anyway, the combination tastes good, and the garlic will keep the vampires away.

Advertisements

Golden Tie

January 22, 2012

I posted the beginnings of my musings on the presentation of a yellow, or gold, tie to David Brooks by a houseguest of his, that he reported during the most recent posting of the pre-NewsHour blog segment Shields and Brooks do with Hari Sreenivasan.  The tie turned out to have a label identifying it as some sort of promotional item from Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana.  The story seems to be that Daniels distributed the ties in China, and a houseguest from China gave one to David.

I commented on the NewsHour blog that the tie reminded me of white (or gold or blue) scarves given as offerings in some strands of Buddhist culture.  I don’t know too much about this custom.  I did a little bit of reading today about it, after the idea that the tie was like a khata in this context had burbled up in my mind in a vague form.  What I read makes me think that the Mitch Daniels “re-gifting” aspect of the gift is not irrelevant.  But I thought I’d go on about it here, not on the NewsHour blog, out of concern for being thought an inappropriate guest there (and I would have linked to my blog in my comment there, but I’ve never been sure that’s considered acceptable practice on that blog).

I read that the scarf (khata) may be offered back to the person making the original offer (of the scarf) to the lama.  Now, Mitch Daniels and David Brooks clearly are not the same person, but they could be what some people might call part of the same soul group, or manifestations of the same spirit in some way.  The way I interpret what’s going on, in light of other understandings I have about a spiritual partnership that got very complicated, is that the person who passed his spiritual understandings to his partner was no longer available to receive them back from her, so eventually she found a way to return them to his “soul brother,” someone who shared important features of his make-up — that recipient here is David Brooks (“the part of the seeker, formerly played by Mitch Daniels in this tale, is now being played by David Brooks”).  This is a lot more positive an interpretation than was the one apparently previously held that inferred that the lama simply returned the gift to the wrong person.

I don’t actually think the story is really about Mitch Daniels and David Brooks per se, as their own selves, rather I think that they are re-enacting a situation that happened over many centuries.  I think the Mitch Daniels character is long gone (and I don’t think this says anything negative about Daniels’ health or prospects).  I think David’s character is some kind of wise teacher (his career as a pundit is an echo), but I think the return of the scarf symbolizes that he has been missing something, in need perhaps of some understanding that has been returned to him.  I don’t know, I don’t know his life, his spiritual life, or all that much about him, but it doesn’t really matter what I know, whatever it all means will become clear to him at some point, and that’s, to me, what his receipt of this gift from his houseguest is all about.

Applied spirituality

October 19, 2011

From a spiritual vantage point, I see science and its discoveries and explanations as lots of lovely and detailed footnotes that help us appreciate our world from within it.  I think I see the significance of that level of understanding differently from the scientists — I don’t think those discoveries and explanations are wrong, but I see them as an echo of other things, like overtones to the original note, and I would probably conceptualize the original note as sounding maybe in another dimension or something.  Maybe our world is something like a microcosm to something else.

Where I probably also diverge from the scientific mindset is from the wanting to use the understanding through the discoveries to control and change things in ways that suit our short-sighted desires and fears but have long-term negative consequences that we just don’t have the perspective to see.  To me, the impact of trying to control and manipulate, even for good objectives, is kind of like the indirect effect on other things far away in space and time of a butterfly moving its wings.

I can also see scientific understandings of phenomena as basically just another language for understanding concepts that can be understood through other languages, too.  I think I’ve said this before:  for example, if scientists have found a way in their language to explain what shamans already understand in their own ways of understanding, that we can “send a telegram,” or more, back in time, terrific.

King Henry

October 17, 2011

Yesterday I was walking to the supermarket, and two houses down my street I noticed a folio of a paperback book on the ground.  I was curious, so I picked it up, and when I read it, it turned out to be, I think, from a book of historical fiction about King Henry VIII and the Boleyn sisters.  The sheaf I got was about a particular stage in the not-Anne sister’s (sexual) relationship with Henry, and Anne’s attempts to coach her through her role (when to wait, when to be available, when to withhold, when to accept having to wait herself).  Not quite the plot line of the “King Henry” song I was writing about in the context of “willingness,” but I enjoyed the synchronicity.  What I have trouble figuring out is to what extent I should take the differences in details as significant and to what extent there is no particular point being made, just an echo with some distortion of my own voice.