As we were leaving the house this afternoon, I told my wife, "I need to fix the thingy by the door." She protested, "What (pause) 'thingy?'" I told her that I needed to fix the bump where she goes out the door so it is not hard on her back when she drives over it with her scooter (please remember she is not walking yet). She informed me that the use of the word "thingy" was not terribly descriptive. I told her if she had considered the context in which I spoke, she logically could have figured out what I meant and there would be no need for further explanation on my part. She gave me examples of several "contexts" I might have intended. She made sense. She's very bright. She always makes sense.
To interrupt the flow of this story, there are two types of successful marriages. The first is the complimentary type. In my experience, these are quite rare. A complimentary couple will say, "We see the world exactly the same way" or "We never disagree." These always seemed to be ideal, heavenly marriages. Think what it would be like to have a spouse say, "Let's eat out tonight," and the other say, "That's exactly what I was thinking!" The husband says, "We need a new yellow truck with a 583 hemi, dual quads, five wheel drive, compound axle, extra long bed, raised, McIntosh custom sound with a gun rack." She says, "That sounds great." She says "We need to remodel the kitchen and take out a 4th mortgage on the house," and he says, "It's about time." "While we're at it," she says, "Let's go to Bora-Bora for our 20th anniversary." He tells her he always wanted to go to Bora-Bora.
The second type of marriage is the non-complimentary, contrasting or typical marriage*. In this marriage, the couples vie for supremacy, respecting each other, but seeing the world very differently.
These marriages make the world go around. It is hard to imagine any growth in a complimentary marriage and they tend to carry a lot of debt. In the contrasting marriage, couples grow, learn to see another person's point of view and perfect the art of compromise. The contrasting marriage is harder, but pays more dividends.
Other types of marriages also exist: capitulation, nonaggression pacts, shuttle diplomacy, mutually assured destruction and nuclear war, to name just a few. For our purposes, it is not necessary to explore these.
Now, to finish the story, after some discussion, which approached a border skirmish, when my wife finally understood the context in which I was speaking, she said, "Oh, I thought you meant that little do-dad that keeps the door open."
*See "The War Between the Men and the Women" by James Thurber
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Book Review: The Good Old Boys by Elmer Kelton
"The Good Old Boys" is about Hewey Calloway, a drifting cowboy and his horse Biscuit. Elmer Kelton has the type nailed down. Responsibility and good judgement are not Hewey's strong suits, but honesty and sincerity are.
Hewey, who doesn't carry a gun because it might lead to violence, wanders back to his brother's hard scrabble ranch in West Texas after being gone for two years. During that time, no one in the family knew where Hewey was, if he was dead or alive. When Hewey arrives, they are relieved to see him, but not particularly glad. Things go down hill and up hill from there. As Hewey's misadventures unfold, the reader meets Snort Yarnell, Boy Rasmussen and a host of other characters. Readers attracted to "characters" will meet some of fiction's best. I grew up around many characters and have always loved the humanity of the most reprobate of individuals. Each person has a certain dignity although it can hard to find.
Hewey eventually meets Spring Renfro, the local school marm. Sparks fly between them and carry the better part of the plot until the end of the book. The only unrealistic aspect of the book may be what Spring sees in Hewey, but then I don't know what most women see in most men. We are a pitiful lot.
There is a humor that exists among cowboys. "The Good Old Boys" is full of this cowboy humor. It also touches the heart. For all of his weakness, Hewey is a good man. He is reminiscent of Augustus McRae from "Lonesome Dove," or a Steinbeck character from "Cannery Row." "The Good Old Boys" belongs with those books and perhaps exceeds them. It is one of the best works of fiction to come out of the 20th century. Elmer Kelton has written "When the Cowboys Quit," and "The Time It Never Rained." They are excellent books. Kelton has narrow following now, but will one day be recognized as one of the fine writers of his time.
Hewey, who doesn't carry a gun because it might lead to violence, wanders back to his brother's hard scrabble ranch in West Texas after being gone for two years. During that time, no one in the family knew where Hewey was, if he was dead or alive. When Hewey arrives, they are relieved to see him, but not particularly glad. Things go down hill and up hill from there. As Hewey's misadventures unfold, the reader meets Snort Yarnell, Boy Rasmussen and a host of other characters. Readers attracted to "characters" will meet some of fiction's best. I grew up around many characters and have always loved the humanity of the most reprobate of individuals. Each person has a certain dignity although it can hard to find.
Hewey eventually meets Spring Renfro, the local school marm. Sparks fly between them and carry the better part of the plot until the end of the book. The only unrealistic aspect of the book may be what Spring sees in Hewey, but then I don't know what most women see in most men. We are a pitiful lot.
There is a humor that exists among cowboys. "The Good Old Boys" is full of this cowboy humor. It also touches the heart. For all of his weakness, Hewey is a good man. He is reminiscent of Augustus McRae from "Lonesome Dove," or a Steinbeck character from "Cannery Row." "The Good Old Boys" belongs with those books and perhaps exceeds them. It is one of the best works of fiction to come out of the 20th century. Elmer Kelton has written "When the Cowboys Quit," and "The Time It Never Rained." They are excellent books. Kelton has narrow following now, but will one day be recognized as one of the fine writers of his time.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
A book review: "Why Evolution is True."
Occasionally, I indulge myself in reviewing a book on Amazon. I suppose it is just a creative outlet as is a blog. Some of this will be repetitive to readers of this blog. The review follows.
I am a truth seeker. I do not care if evolutionary theory is "true" or not, although I do believe a supreme being's hand was behind the creation of the world. More on that later. A book titled "Why Evolution is True" seems like an evangelistic tract for the religion of evolution. That's what this book is. It does a decent job of being a primer on evolution, but the author went too far as he offered evolutionary science as proof that creationism has no basis in fact. His science was not the greatest either: "...so they must have..." (p.8), "...making the entirely reasonable assumption..." (p.10), "...probably descended from..." (p. 11), "Our intuition is to say..." (p. 34), "...they could be evolutionary cousins..." (p. 36). The terminology of the preceding comments comments (I could have provided more.) are in the realm of hypothesis, not proof as the author states. It is subtle persuasion he uses that is not necessarily backed up by scientific fact. I was disappointed by this aspect of the book, although I learned a number of things, hence three stars instead of one. I was fascinated by his explanation of the fossil record and extinction, just to mention two.
Some years ago, I saw a PBS nature special set in South America. Somewhere off in a jungle, the Amazon as I recall, a moth with a proboscis that unfolded to 12 inches sucked life giving nectar from a plant that had a narrow 11 1/2 inch stem. The only way the unusual moth could survive was to drink the nectar from the unusual plant. The narrator mentioned this illustrated evolutionary adaption. Can someone tell me how the moth grew the mouth to reach the nectar without dying first? If the plant started out with so long a stem, how did the moth know how to adapt without dying first? If the moth always had the long snout, why did the plant need to evolve and what told it to do so? Using Coyne's entirely unscientific term, to me, it is an "entirely reasonable assumption" that both the moth and the plant with the nectar were created that way.
Years ago, I visited with a doctor who became a believer when he was working on a cadaver in med school. He found that the human eye had a tendon attached with a pulley which allowed the eyeball to move in the socket. He was amazed, but it was as he saw that where the tendon crossed the pulley, there was a lubricating gland that kept the tendon and the pulley from wearing out. His conclusion was that there was a designer who would place that gland there to lubricate the tendon and the pulley. There is nothing in Coyne's book that addresses type of an issue.
Obvious every doctor or scientist who has seen this has not come to the same conclusion. My two examples are not scientific, but do make one wonder (which is the genesis [pardon the term] of science). Could it just have evolved that way? Was it created? Rather than stating scientific thought as end all, or religious dogma as the end all, I think there is much more for us to learn. Humility in the face of the wonders of the world should be in order, not rigid dogma (scientific or religious) I do not believe the world and everything in it was created in six days, but I do not believe that science has all answers either. If it did, science would cease to be science. A brilliant theologian once said, "Science that excludes religion is poor science. Religion that excludes science is poor religion."
I am a truth seeker. I do not care if evolutionary theory is "true" or not, although I do believe a supreme being's hand was behind the creation of the world. More on that later. A book titled "Why Evolution is True" seems like an evangelistic tract for the religion of evolution. That's what this book is. It does a decent job of being a primer on evolution, but the author went too far as he offered evolutionary science as proof that creationism has no basis in fact. His science was not the greatest either: "...so they must have..." (p.8), "...making the entirely reasonable assumption..." (p.10), "...probably descended from..." (p. 11), "Our intuition is to say..." (p. 34), "...they could be evolutionary cousins..." (p. 36). The terminology of the preceding comments comments (I could have provided more.) are in the realm of hypothesis, not proof as the author states. It is subtle persuasion he uses that is not necessarily backed up by scientific fact. I was disappointed by this aspect of the book, although I learned a number of things, hence three stars instead of one. I was fascinated by his explanation of the fossil record and extinction, just to mention two.
Some years ago, I saw a PBS nature special set in South America. Somewhere off in a jungle, the Amazon as I recall, a moth with a proboscis that unfolded to 12 inches sucked life giving nectar from a plant that had a narrow 11 1/2 inch stem. The only way the unusual moth could survive was to drink the nectar from the unusual plant. The narrator mentioned this illustrated evolutionary adaption. Can someone tell me how the moth grew the mouth to reach the nectar without dying first? If the plant started out with so long a stem, how did the moth know how to adapt without dying first? If the moth always had the long snout, why did the plant need to evolve and what told it to do so? Using Coyne's entirely unscientific term, to me, it is an "entirely reasonable assumption" that both the moth and the plant with the nectar were created that way.
Years ago, I visited with a doctor who became a believer when he was working on a cadaver in med school. He found that the human eye had a tendon attached with a pulley which allowed the eyeball to move in the socket. He was amazed, but it was as he saw that where the tendon crossed the pulley, there was a lubricating gland that kept the tendon and the pulley from wearing out. His conclusion was that there was a designer who would place that gland there to lubricate the tendon and the pulley. There is nothing in Coyne's book that addresses type of an issue.
Obvious every doctor or scientist who has seen this has not come to the same conclusion. My two examples are not scientific, but do make one wonder (which is the genesis [pardon the term] of science). Could it just have evolved that way? Was it created? Rather than stating scientific thought as end all, or religious dogma as the end all, I think there is much more for us to learn. Humility in the face of the wonders of the world should be in order, not rigid dogma (scientific or religious) I do not believe the world and everything in it was created in six days, but I do not believe that science has all answers either. If it did, science would cease to be science. A brilliant theologian once said, "Science that excludes religion is poor science. Religion that excludes science is poor religion."
Monday, September 5, 2011
Wayne
Last night, I called Wayne, the best of family friends. Wayne is 89, just as sharp as he can be, but is lamenting the fact that all of his friends have died. As he said, "No one is left who calls me kid!"
Wayne has always been one of my favorite people. He was an insurance salesman, so had great people skills. He should have run for office. He is accepting of everyone he meets and always looks on the positive. I have never heard him criticize anyone. He is from Ord, Nebraska. I looked it up on a map and Ord is close to nothing, except a river. I don't know whatever or whoever else came out of Ord, but it sure produced a great man in Wayne.
Aside from being able to sell insect spray to cockroaches, Wayne could round up cattle at the family ranch, fix most things with bailing wire and chewing gum and play the piano like a pro, although he never had a lesson. If there was a problem, Wayne could take care of it. He raised three great kids and I always thought it would have been wonderful to have Wayne as a dad. He could correct a problem with firmness, but you always knew he was on your side.
Perhaps Wayne's greatest talent was his choice in women. Wayne's wonderful wife, Dorothy, was very different than Wayne, but like him, she had a huge heart and loved everyone. She was positive and you just knew she cared about you. Wayne and Dorothy were one of my Dad's greatest supports after my Mom left him. More than once, I saw Wayne tell a story or a joke, Dorothy would roll her eyes a bit, but loved every second of it. Dorothy passed away a year and a half ago, leaving an unfillable hole in Wayne's heart.
At 89, Wayne will see his Dorothy again one of these first years. He'll join again with those who'll call him kid. He'll visit with my Mom and Dad. In the meantime, if you are ever a little down, want to have a laugh or hear a great story or just feel a little better about life and the people in it, just call Wayne. He's up to it!
Wayne has always been one of my favorite people. He was an insurance salesman, so had great people skills. He should have run for office. He is accepting of everyone he meets and always looks on the positive. I have never heard him criticize anyone. He is from Ord, Nebraska. I looked it up on a map and Ord is close to nothing, except a river. I don't know whatever or whoever else came out of Ord, but it sure produced a great man in Wayne.
Aside from being able to sell insect spray to cockroaches, Wayne could round up cattle at the family ranch, fix most things with bailing wire and chewing gum and play the piano like a pro, although he never had a lesson. If there was a problem, Wayne could take care of it. He raised three great kids and I always thought it would have been wonderful to have Wayne as a dad. He could correct a problem with firmness, but you always knew he was on your side.
Perhaps Wayne's greatest talent was his choice in women. Wayne's wonderful wife, Dorothy, was very different than Wayne, but like him, she had a huge heart and loved everyone. She was positive and you just knew she cared about you. Wayne and Dorothy were one of my Dad's greatest supports after my Mom left him. More than once, I saw Wayne tell a story or a joke, Dorothy would roll her eyes a bit, but loved every second of it. Dorothy passed away a year and a half ago, leaving an unfillable hole in Wayne's heart.
At 89, Wayne will see his Dorothy again one of these first years. He'll join again with those who'll call him kid. He'll visit with my Mom and Dad. In the meantime, if you are ever a little down, want to have a laugh or hear a great story or just feel a little better about life and the people in it, just call Wayne. He's up to it!
Intimacy
It seems that our society has lost its sense of intimacy. Not physical intimacy, there seems to be plenty of that, but the emotional intimacy that exists between family members and friends. The other night, Brenda and I had what used to be called a heart to heart conversation. We talked about our future, our problems and our blessings. We made some goals and tossed some goals aside.
We have come to the realization that given Brenda's pain and physical limitations, we will not be traveling together any more. My traveling will be limited because she is a habit with me and I don't want to be away from her very long. It is the form of intimacy called love. I wanted to go to London and Paris while I am able, but what would be the joy of going without Brenda. If it's a contest between London, Paris and Brenda, Brenda wins every time! Of course, there is this matter of money too.
We've had a good time together. We both like to travel and have had our most enjoyable times seeing things we never thought we would see. We've been to all but eight states together and have set foot in most large cities in the country. We've walked Red Square in Moscow, the Summer Palace in St. Petersburg, the Vatican in Rome and the Leaning Tower of Pisa. We've strolled the beaches of Hawaii and climbed on a glacier in Alaska. We've even been to Moscow, Idaho. We have nothing to complain about.
Intimacy is discussing the future with a child. Having tears with your husband or wife. The death of a loved one. Dinner with good friends. It is open, honest communication. Intimacy is rewarding, but not usually easy.
Intimacy is not going to a football game, watching TV, sitting in a movie or visiting the state fair, although these can be great, fun, bonding events events. Intimacy can be a discussion of the football game afterwards, talking about why I liked the movie or what ride was the best at the fair.
I used to sit with my Mom and we'd watch the sunset. We'd poor our hearts out to each other. It wasn't always pleasant, but it was always personal. She could trust me to keep her secrets and I could even talk about girls I liked. She was my friend and confidant all the time I was at home. She was my security as I grew up. It was an intimate relationship.
One of the problem we face in our society, is a lack of intimacy between parent and child. Children need the one on one conversations with parents that solves problems, eliminates insecurity and builds self-confidence. We are so busy running here and there, keeping out children involved in various activities, that we often do not take those moments of communication that are so needed. It takes time, can be a pain, but bears great dividends. Intimacy touches the heart of another human being.
We have come to the realization that given Brenda's pain and physical limitations, we will not be traveling together any more. My traveling will be limited because she is a habit with me and I don't want to be away from her very long. It is the form of intimacy called love. I wanted to go to London and Paris while I am able, but what would be the joy of going without Brenda. If it's a contest between London, Paris and Brenda, Brenda wins every time! Of course, there is this matter of money too.
We've had a good time together. We both like to travel and have had our most enjoyable times seeing things we never thought we would see. We've been to all but eight states together and have set foot in most large cities in the country. We've walked Red Square in Moscow, the Summer Palace in St. Petersburg, the Vatican in Rome and the Leaning Tower of Pisa. We've strolled the beaches of Hawaii and climbed on a glacier in Alaska. We've even been to Moscow, Idaho. We have nothing to complain about.
Intimacy is discussing the future with a child. Having tears with your husband or wife. The death of a loved one. Dinner with good friends. It is open, honest communication. Intimacy is rewarding, but not usually easy.
Intimacy is not going to a football game, watching TV, sitting in a movie or visiting the state fair, although these can be great, fun, bonding events events. Intimacy can be a discussion of the football game afterwards, talking about why I liked the movie or what ride was the best at the fair.
I used to sit with my Mom and we'd watch the sunset. We'd poor our hearts out to each other. It wasn't always pleasant, but it was always personal. She could trust me to keep her secrets and I could even talk about girls I liked. She was my friend and confidant all the time I was at home. She was my security as I grew up. It was an intimate relationship.
One of the problem we face in our society, is a lack of intimacy between parent and child. Children need the one on one conversations with parents that solves problems, eliminates insecurity and builds self-confidence. We are so busy running here and there, keeping out children involved in various activities, that we often do not take those moments of communication that are so needed. It takes time, can be a pain, but bears great dividends. Intimacy touches the heart of another human being.
First Things First
Twelve years ago, I received a call from my stepmother, Maurine. She asked me to attend a business meeting with her then invited me to go to dinner. I had a church meeting scheduled for that night, so I had a decision to make as to whether I'd go to the meeting or join Maurine. An obligation versus spending time with a loved one. I've always felt family should come first, so I missed the meeting to be with Maurine. It was one of the best decisions I've ever made. Five days later, Maurine died in a violent plane crash. I've been to many meetings since. I don't remember what was accomplished in most of them. Maybe we changed some lives and helped some people. I'm not anti-meeting, but my life was forever touched by that time with Maurine that night.
Some time ago, a new convert to the Church came to our bishop with a problem. I happened to overhear the conversation. The young man said that he knew he made a commitment to attend Church meetings on Sunday, but that his parents had a camping trip planned for the coming weekend. For him to miss it would cause difficulty with his family. The bishop wisely asked the young man, "What's more important than family?" Sometimes we must set family needs aside, but as a general rule, it is usually best error for the family.
Those who are dear to us should be our priority. Typically, they will not die if we don't see them, but I was certainly impressed by the drama of my decision to spend time with Maurine on that night. She was most important to me. I had my priorities straight. Whenever a loved one passes on, there is a certain level of guilt. Maurine's death was no exception, but a lot of guilt was eliminated as a result of our time together. But the important aspect is that Maurine and I felt a bond that night. She knew I loved her and I knew she loved me. That was significant the last night I spent with her and remains so these twelve years later.
Some time ago, a new convert to the Church came to our bishop with a problem. I happened to overhear the conversation. The young man said that he knew he made a commitment to attend Church meetings on Sunday, but that his parents had a camping trip planned for the coming weekend. For him to miss it would cause difficulty with his family. The bishop wisely asked the young man, "What's more important than family?" Sometimes we must set family needs aside, but as a general rule, it is usually best error for the family.
Those who are dear to us should be our priority. Typically, they will not die if we don't see them, but I was certainly impressed by the drama of my decision to spend time with Maurine on that night. She was most important to me. I had my priorities straight. Whenever a loved one passes on, there is a certain level of guilt. Maurine's death was no exception, but a lot of guilt was eliminated as a result of our time together. But the important aspect is that Maurine and I felt a bond that night. She knew I loved her and I knew she loved me. That was significant the last night I spent with her and remains so these twelve years later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)