New bloggy goodness!

I mentioned a little while back that I'm trying to make a go as a freelance writer. To that end, I'm starting up a couple "professional" blogs, that I hope will garner an audience beyond just my friends.

I was planning to launch them Nov. 1, that is, tomorrow. And it looks like I'll actually have one of them up and running. The other should be up a little later this week.

What can I say but, Woo Hoo!

I'll post the links as soon as they're good to go.
Rabbert blathers on....

I'm so proud to be a sad paranoid schizoid!

Hat tip to Mike Flynn.
Rabbert blathers on....

Apologies...

Sorry I've been off-line for the past couple weeks. At first, I was off in the boonies of North Carolina without any internets access; then I was in the not-so-boonies of North Carolina, where internets access cost $5/hour; then I was back home, recovering from travel; and then ... um, I was just a little lazy.

Sorry!

I'll bring you up to date a little later. In the meantime, go ahead and occupy yourselves with...

Rabbert blathers on....

Movie dream casts...

So the other day, a friend and I were grabbing some breakfast together, and we started thinking of dream casts that Hollywood really ought to put together.

Our first thought was:

• Christopher Walken
• Alan Rickman
• Meryl Streep
• supporting role for William Shatner

Plot? With a cast like this, who needs plot?

Okay, plot is important -- but secondary, I think. So, a road movie, probably three siblings running from the cops. Let's say, a chase across Canada, with Brendan Fraser leading the RCMP.

You know you want to see it. Just remember, you heard it here first.

Another idea was for a re-make of An Affair to Remember. There were three suggestions for casting:

• George Clooney
• this was tough -- we sort of settled on either Catherine Zeta-Jones or Julia Roberts, but we didn't think either was perfect; and besides, both have co-starred with Clooney before

or, for a slightly younger crowd ...

• Ewan MacGregor
• Amy Adams

or, to go more for fireworks than for flames, maybe ...

• Will Smith
• Cameron Diaz
  

And I'd like to add a runner-up pair of personal favorites:

• John Cusack
• Catherine Keener
  

So, what think you? Any other fun casting ideas? Any suggestions or disputations with my friends' and my brainstorms?
Rabbert blathers on....

On gambling

My dad loves the casino. He loves the slot machines, which I simply do not understand. For myself, I prefer something more active, something that involves skill and tactics. So, many gambling games just are not interesting to me. Among card games, Pinochle is my favorite.

I do, however, enjoy the occasional game of poker. I like the bluffing aspect. I like the choices involved in building a hand. My favorite poker game, which you'll never find in a casino, is called Chicago: it's basic seven-card stud, but the high spade in the hold splits the pot. It encourages more players to stay in, and throws a wrench in the works of reading other players' bets. Good clean fun -- as long as it's penny-nickel poker among friends.

Some of my friends oppose gambling on principle. And I'll admit that it's an easily addictive activity. I've been in games where I caught myself thinking, If only I put a little more money on the table, I could make back what I lost. But I've also been in control enough to recognize that impulse as a danger sign, a temptation. And I've been able to walk away. Most of the time.

My dad's philosophy, and it's a good one as far as it goes, is to consider gambling an entertainment activity on which you spend some money. First, determine how much you're going to spend on entertainment at the game. That becomes the only money available. You consider the money you bet to belong to the house already; it's spent money. If you win anything at all, that's gravy. If you break even, that's as good as a win.

If someone doesn't bring in more money than they can afford, and doesn't bet more than they bring in, then this system works to make an enjoyable time at betting games. If not, then gambling becomes a real problem and, at that point according to Catholic tradition, a sin.

The truth is, this kind of rule applies to any kind of entertainment activity. Sometimes it's money you're spending, sometimes it's time, sometimes it's physical energy -- usually it's some combination of the three, as for those who love to ski. If you don't overspend to begin with, and you don't let the entertainment overrun its limits, it makes for a good time. If the entertainment gets in the way of the rest of life, then it's a problem, and probably a sin.

For myself, I find the temptation strongest when there's some part of reality that I want to escape from. I use anything from TV to eating to hanging out with friends as ways to escape from difficult tasks or situations. That's a bad habit. That's a vice.

The only way to overcome it is to face reality. Do my duty. Get the job done. And, when it's time to play, play deliberately in a truly enjoyable way.

In other words, let work be work. And when I play poker, play with friends rather than to try to make money; play for the joy of the game, and joy will come whether the money stays or goes.

Rabbert blathers on....

She's always a woman to me...

I was raised in a fairly prejudice-free environment -- as much as any environment can be, I suppose. It never occurred to me that different skin color or physical features had anything to do with personality or intelligence or integrity; and it never occurred to me that women and men should be treated differently with regard to authority or dignity. I had to learn about these things in history class.

However, it has always been my instinct, and it remains my reasoned conclusion, that men and women are distinct manifestations of humanity, and therefore should act and be treated differently in respecting those differences. The question is, just what differences are essential to masculinity or femininity, and which are "social constructs" that exalt or oppress or set one sex against the other?

G.K. Chesterton, whom I am currently reading, posits that women and men occupy two distinct spheres of society: the men are specialists whose work and life is based on adherence to rules and whose relationships tend toward the egalitarianism he calls "camaraderie"; meanwhile, women are universalists, adept at everything, whose work and lives is based on the wisdom of an absolute ruler who has influence over every aspect of life within her realm.

That is to say, the sphere of men is narrow, but is free within the whole of public life; the sphere of women is broad, but is free within the limits of the home.

It's an interesting approach. He claims that it respects the freedom and value appropriate to each sex, and I have to say that I approve heartily of his goal. I'm not entirely convinced that his suggested means are the best way to get there. For example, regarding the Suffragettes, he says:

The question is not whether women are good enough for votes: it is whether votes are good enough for women.

And he answers that voting takes away the particular dignity of women by imposing on them a public responsibility that (at best) distracts them and (at worst) denegrates them.

Based on his assumptions about the nature of men and women, his conclusion makes some sense. It is exactly those assumptions that I question.

Unfortunately, I don't have an answer of my own ... yet.

I am convinced that one distinctive feature of the sexes is their sexual difference. That is, it is clearly an essential feature of women -- the defining feature, even -- that they are able to bear and nurture children. (Indeed, if it weren't for recombinant DNA, it would be difficult to figure what the defining feature of men could be!)

I'm also convinced that the sexual difference is not the only essential difference between men and women. And this is where things get very muddy very quickly. Some social differences clearly support the sexual differences, such as the tendency in virtually every culture for women to have primary care of rearing children at least until adolescence. Other social differences seem to have little relation to the sexual difference, such as the custom in many places for men to have short hair and women to have long hair.

I suppose my current approach is similar to that of St. Augustine regarding Christian doctrine and practice: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."
Rabbert blathers on....

Getting organized

At the advice of several of my friends, I'm taking two new steps to add a little order to my life: making a to-do list, and using a timer.

The to-do list is, of course, an ancient concept which I have resisted mainly because of my laziness. After all, making a to-do list is a thing that one has to do. So I'm going to put "make tomorrow's to-do list" as the last item on today's to-do list. Let's hope this will elongate, if not perpetuate, the habit.

The timer I purchased is a mid-level kitchen timer. It has buttons for the numbers zero through nine, so that I can input the exact minutes and seconds I wish to time. It counts up as well as counting down. I'll use it to make sure I'm spending a certain amount of time on each form of writing I have to do.

Tools are only as good as the person using them, so please pray for me that I'll use them well!
Rabbert blathers on....

Postscript

By the way, if you feel like contributing to my professional career immediately, I've set up a PayPal donation button on the sidebar, just below the "Share it" item. In case you were wondering what to do with all your extra cash, you know.

Many thanks, in advance.
Rabbert blathers on....

Return to normal ... whatever that is

Back home in Seattle. It's a strange thing: I find beauty everywhere I go, but nowhere is home in the same way as Seattle is. Even the Bay Area, where I spent nearly a decade of my life and which I know better (in some ways), doesn't have the same quality of at-home-ness as here.

So I'm back to my unemployed meanderings.

No, that's not quite true. I've been accepted by an agency that connects freelance writers to companies in need of web content. So I have become a freelance writer. That's my new job title.

And I realize, I've never really thought of myself as a writer. I've always thought of myself as an aspiring writer. A wannabe.

The fact is, I'm a writer exactly as much as I write and put my work out for others to read. And maybe even pay for. Once in a while.

So, I have a new goal: to fulfill my duties and job description as a writer. To that end, I'll be making a couple changes in my life:

• I'll be scheduling writing into my day as an appointment, as if it was a job -- because it is
• I'll be focusing my writing on areas that I think I can sell my work and make something like a living off of it
• As part of that, I'll be starting a couple new blogs, that I hope will fill a gap in the blogosphere today; here's what I'm thinking of calling them:
  • Virtue Quest - on growing toward happiness by developing virtue
  • Everyday Aquinas - on how the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas applies to everyday life in the 21st century
• devoting some of my writing time to long-term projects, meaning novels and non-fiction books

So I guess it's not really "back" to normal, as much as it's trying to implement a new normal. If I can make this kind of life "normal", then I should be able to make a living as a writer.

I don't plan to let go of this blog, for those of you who have become utterly dependent on my ruminations for giving meaning and purpose to your lives. But this will be my "personal" blog, rather than my "professional" blog. I'd love to have your feedback on my work, both personal and professional. I'd also like to know if any of you are trying similar disciplines to make your way through this vale of tears.

So keep reading, and I'll let you know what kind of progress I'm making. And thanks for your support (especially you, Amy!)
Rabbert blathers on....

Albuquirky

I'm currently in a hotel in Albuquerque, New Mexico, awaiting tomorrow morning's flight back to home sweet home. I must admit, I have an outrageous prejudice against this town. I think right turns should be outlawed.

Need I say any more?
Rabbert blathers on....

Absurd v. Uncanny

Just Jen makes a great distinction that the NY Times -- or at least the study they describe -- misses.

On the other hand, how is a scientist to make a distinction that is, perhaps, beyond the ken of science?

What the scientist can study is how the brain acts in certain circumstances. The Times gives the following example:

When ... patterns break down — as when a hiker stumbles across an easy chair sitting deep in the woods, as if dropped from the sky — the brain gropes for something, anything that makes sense. It may retreat to a familiar ritual, like checking equipment. But it may also turn its attention outward, the researchers argue, and notice, say, a pattern in animal tracks that was previously hidden. The urge to find a coherent pattern makes it more likely that the brain will find one.

This sort of thing is empirically verifiable. Moreover, various forms of prayer and/or meditation have been shown to correspond to certain brain states. But what is not clear is whether there is an empirical difference between a mystical vision and an experience of absurdity.

In short, can the brain tell the difference between an angelic vision in the woods and a vision of a La-Z-Boy?

The mind certainly can tell the difference. Had Muhammad, or Joseph Smith, claimed to see a talking rocking chair, they would have been laughed out of town. Had Paul told the Athenians that their "unknown god" had raised the Pythagorean theorem from the dead, they would have told him to go study logic.

But these people claimed an experience, not contrary to reason, but beyond reason. They described an event that, if true, would broaden the scope of the world and human experience. This is as true of ghost hunters as it is of prophets. Their experience is uncanny.

The merely absurd, on the other hand, actually attempts to destroy the world and, in particular, human experience. It posits something that disorients, that undermines the trust we put in out senses and intellect. Our minds seek order and rationality in the world; absurdity denies that there is order or rationality to seek.

To which I reply, where did the human mind get the idea to seek order?

In any case, the answer to the question of whether brain states empirically show a difference between an experience of the absurd and an experience of the uncanny would show more about the scope of science than it would about the nature of the universe.
Rabbert blathers on....

Ecumenism

One of the reasons for the lack of posts recently is that I've traveled to my cousin's wedding. The liturgy was truly beautiful, combining both reverence for God and the solemnity of marriage, and the earthy irreverence that so characterizes my cousin (and most of my family).

Now, I'm a Catholic. My cousin was raised at least nominally Catholic. I don't know what kind of religious background her husband has. The ceremony was Episcopalian. And this caused me a deep ache, as if the very marrow of my bones was both compacted and stretched out at the same time.

I have nothing personal against Episcopalians, or the Anglican Communion. I have, of course, theological disagreements; but those are not the cause of my pain. My pain comes from the division between the members of Christ's Body.

I realize that I place an importance on religion and theology that is, well, statistically abnormal. I see religion as something foundational to every aspect of life, and therefore one of the least negotiable parts of one's life. Most people I talk to seem to take religion as a means of connecting with their spirituality and/or their community, and therefore as something fairly, even essentially, changeable. So I'm not sure quite how to approach people without coming off as a zealot or a "Stepford" Catholic.

At the same time, I really don't understand how so many Christians can simply tolerate -- or even celebrate! -- the ongoing divisions between the "denominations" of Christianity. As I say, it causes me a pain that has physical manifestations. I hate that I was unable to share Communion with my cousin at her wedding. I hate that I am unable to share Communion with many of my close friends.

I just don't quite know what to do to encourage a resolution to this situation.
Rabbert blathers on....