One Good Holiday
Many consider Thanksgiving as a time for family and a time to gather together. Mrs. Schmootzie and I use this day to hide like dust mites in Dom Deluise's beard. We sequester ourselves at home, turn out the lights, lock the doors, turn off the phone ringer and cook food.
We also don't like to think of it as "Thanksgiving". We combine Halloween and Thanksgiving in to "Thanksween". We might walk around our neighborhood and collect leftovers, which we freeze to eat the rest of the year. Kick ass. Otherwise, we'll have the usual ToFurky... ToFurky is Faux Turkey as it is said. I'm going to fabricate gravy from vegetable squeezins.
The nice part is, while Christmas and the rest involve running ourselves ragged to see everyone, this holiday is for us. We're thankful for each other, our careers and our damn dog everyday. This is just a day to celebrate being together and eating good food.
I'm only going to work for two hours today.
Happy Thanksween.
posted by Schmootzie @ 9:34 AM
6 Comments:
Happy THANKSGIVING to you , Schmootz!
When being robbed, be sure to pray to Christ our Savior. Though Christ has yet to prevent any robberies, one can only imagine how immensely ass-kicking it would be if yours was the first. It would be all POOF, then "My child, pardon my curiosity, but what the fuck do you think you're doing?" then just a flurry of fucking fists and another POOF noise.
Before you use Placid Springs Tartar Control Toothpaste, be sure to read the following warnings:
http://www.jaypinkerton.com/blog/archives/001275.html
Lorraine,
I think I see where you are going, and it is an interesting spin on the matter.
For consistency, can love be scientifically tested? It can, and has been. The abilty to form relationships, especially between mating pairs of many species, is critical to evolution. Monogamous pairing has selective advantage in many instances and the hard-wiring to support it has been tested and is shown to exist.
I'm not an expert, but the biology of love is real and tractable. It starts in lower critters like flies where a males mating dance is accepted by a female. She makes a decision based on how it affects her biochemistry. I would not call this "love" but it is the likely basis of the evolved response.
In higher organisms the cues are many. The hormones released by the touch of a partner are different than those released under touch of a stranger, especially in women. The patterns of glucose metabolism and brain activity upon being shown the picture of someone "loved" are very different than those of someone only recognized. MRIs show specific patterns of brain activity associated with love vs. acquaintence.
Interestingly, these patterns are conserved across species-- humans, cardinals, you name it.
So what we call "love" is a human term applied to a very real biological phenomenon that supports relationships. Our evolved brains have layered abstractions onto the biology and have made it much bigger. Still, you will find it all stems from a scientifically tested, biological base.
It is largely not understood. There are many gaps in the explanation. Intelligent Design would dictate that we the should stop studying it and simply accept it is there.
To the contrary, a scientist would say that it is a complex layered behavior and its basis nebulous. It is a fascinating area worthy of much study.
Lorraine,
Yes, my answer was a bit sterile this morning and I sat about and thought about your question more.
This does sincerely cross my science vs intangible border because I can say that I feel it and understand it. Love of others, love of a dog. I love my job and my country. Yet, certainly this is not a hard-wired biological phenomenon!
Can science "prove" that there is love for spouse/friend/dog/job/country? Can we bottle it, show physical evidence?
Nope. That's good. It is a perception that exists within me and I judge what love is to me. I don't need science to tell me it is there.
People feel the same way about God. They seem to know he exists, not because of evidence, but because they feel it, they just know it, they have faith. Outstanding.
I, on the other hand, do not. It does not bother me in the least. I'm glad others have it, it would be nice if I did.
Love, God, etc all fit into an amorphous hopper of intangible, intractible, unproveable mysteries; mysteries that can never be proven by science in totality.
This is why I get so upset. I am a scientist. I test and generate evidence. You can't do that with these topics and that's why I don't want them taught as science in the classroom. It subverts the way that we teach.
Thanks for a good thought.
Lorraine,
It is difficult for me to ponder such a thing. Again, I remain open to it, if there's any proof I'd love to see it.
If there is some contiguous "soul" or other eternal critter that just takes on different life forms then I'd be surprised. Why? Mostly because these claims of such manifestations are so bogus.
One woman on Oprah (yes, I watched it once) claimed to be able to get into a trance and visit her soul in Ancient Egypt. She closed her eyes and said--
"Here I am in Egypt... (everybody wows at the trance)... the year is 3101 B.C. ..." Everyone was amazed.
Nobody bothered to ask how she could use the birth of someone that is not born yet as a reference point.
Plus, you'd mostly be encountering the souls of non-humans, as the universe invariably has other life forms.
I dunno. I don't have any evidence to suggest seriously consider such possibilities.
Post a Comment
<< Home