bearing blog


bear – ing n 1  the manner in which one comports oneself;  2  the act, power, or time of bringing forth offspring or fruit; 3 a machine part in which another part turns [a journal ~];  pl comprehension of one’s position, environment, or situation;   5  the act of moving while supporting the weight of something [the ~ of the cross].


  • A very surreal self-discovery.

    Happy Catholic links to an article about synesthesia and also to an earlier post about her daughter Hannah’s type of synesthesia:

    I was at out with my daughters, Hannah and Rose, recently when Hannah suddenly turned to us and said, "When I hear words it means a kind of food in my head." We said, "Huh?" (so eloquent). It turns out that ever since she can remember most words link to a food texture and image in her head. For example "also" is pretzels, "mother" is chocolate milk, "listen" is orange Triaminic. It isn’t always food and it doesn’t happen with every single word (for instance "squirrel" is just a squirrel) but it happens for practically every word she hears.

    I have read about synesthesia before, and I’ve always wondered what it would be like, although I’ve never met anyone in person who fessed up to being a synesthete.  The verbal/food crosswiring was one I had never heard of before, so I was reading the post about Hannah with interest as if I were reading about some strange and exotic country, when I got to this part:

    It has turned into a parlor trick where she will suddenly say, "’Julie’ is pecan pie" or "’lady’ is heavy folds of a skirt."

    …and suddenly I was dropped in my own neighborhood.  Oh my gosh, I thought.  When she says "lady" is heavy folds of a skirt I know exactly what she means. I know exactly how "lady’"can be heavy folds of a skirt.

    Except it isn’t (for me) heavy folds of a skirt, it’s a shawl, and hair in ringlets, cascading down over shoulders.

    This was a little bit of a shock to me.  And I’m still not exactly sure this "counts"—I’m not about to call myself a synesthete or anything, I think I should talk to an expert first.  But there has something else inside the words on the pages I read, and I never knew exactly how to put it until I read that sentence above.   It’s the first thing I’ve ever read a synesthete say that made sense to me.

    The "something else inside the word" always seems to me to have a logical connection to the meaning of the word (for example, the shawl, shoulders, and ringlets are part of a picture of a ‘lady’ that I carry in my head) but it is inextricably linked with the shape of the word as it appears on the page.  And that something else is not a texture; it’s kind of a motion or gesture, often with surfaces sliding past one another, though, so the texture of the surfaces are involved. 

    It wouldn’t be far off to say that there is a sign for every word, which does not correspond to any real sign language, but only the one in my head.  Sometimes there is a sort of facial expression along with it.

    Happy Catholic says that for her daughter the food-sensations are stronger when she says the word than when she hears it.  For me, the motion/gestures/whatever appear only when I read the word, or imagine its appearance on a page of text.  And it’s stronger with typeset text than with handwritten text.

    It’s devilishly hard to describe the kinetics I’m thinking of here.  Ironically, it seems almost impossible to translate them into words on a page.  But some of them pop up easily.  I mean, when I thought, "let’s try to write some of these down," I immediately thought, "Oh, do ‘glasses’ first, that’s an easy one."

    • glasses is a folding up of spindly, clicking jointed things
    • sign is a hand held up, rotating at the wrist and being pulled downward at the same time
    • moth is… Ever played Hungry Hungry Hippos?  "moth" is a grabbing motion like the one the hippo heads make.
    • fathered is a man’s hand sliding over the outside of his own thigh.
    • interest is a raising of eyebrows.

    Words that have two very different meanings have only one kinetic association.  So, in "He’s paying six and a half percent interest" and "He followed the discussion with interest," the word interest moves in the same way.  Or take "he has a still in his back yard" vs. "he still hasn’t paid me back" vs. "the waters were calm and still."  Still is always the same:  in place, vibrating gently. 

    And words that have similar spellings sometimes move similarly.  For example, fathered and lathered are not far apart.   And ladle is a little bit like lady.   And wart is a smaller, truncated version of war.  Synonyms aren’t necessarily related, though. 

    When I went through the English words for integers one through twelve, I found that many of them are motions and gestures performed by children "of about that age."  I also wrote down a few French words and observed that they are not the same as their English counterparts.

    This is something I’m going to have to think about a lot more!


  • A little experiment.

    I have a son who will be two in October. 

    Today he was standing at my shoulder when I came across this picture of a 44-day old human embryo.  (The pic is from the University of Michigan’s "Multi-Dimensional Human Embryo Project," which I only just learned about.  Check it out.)

    I said, "Hey Milo, what’s that?" and pointed to the screen.

    He said, "Baby!"

    I was kind of surprised.  But I thought, I guess all embryos probably look about the same.  Let’s try another one.  So I googled "embryo -human" and found this.  It’s a chicken embryo, seventy-two hours old.

    "What’s this one?" I asked, and pointed.

    He said, "Duck!"

    No way!  I said "What?!?" and Milo said "Bird!"

    Work with me here.  The child can’t read, there are no images of ducks, chicks, or birds anywhere on that page.  Have I got an embryology prodigy on my hands?


  • Popeblogging? No, the pope’s blogging!

    I have probably already mentioned this, but if you’re not reading Musum Pontificalis regularly, you’re really missing out on a great parody site.  The basic idea:  The pope blogs.  And responds in the comments.  Don’t worry—it’s gentle and clean.

    Here the good Papa takes on reality TV shows.  Read the comments.


  • “The most absent of all absent fathers.”

    More comments on the Donor 1047 story that I linked a few days ago, over at Family Scholars Blog:

    So, yes, it is [the children’s] right to know their genetic heritage.

    But, as
    adults, is it *our* right to intentionally create children who must go
    through such an agonizing search, and who we all know, from the start,
    will never have the opportunity to grow up with the father who made
    them?

    And there’s this great essay—actually just a portion of an essay—wondering about the reason behind the latest string of sperm-donor-as-hero stories:

    In all these stories, one common conceit emerges: a cold-cash transaction has been elevated into a gift relationship….

    For at least a decade, there has been growing national concern about
    the trend of “father absence.” …How then can we explain the
    glorification of the “donor dad”–the most absent of all absent fathers?

    The author thinks it’s because an increasing number of the customers are women—single women and households of two women—who can provide no father figure at all.   Hence the imaginary, maintenance free, trouble free, shadow-father.

     


  • Three things that become or are equated to body, or flesh, one way or another.

    Genesis 2:24:

    …a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body [some translations:  "one flesh."]

    John 1:14:

    And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us…

    John 6:51, coupled with 1 Corinthians 11:23-24:

    …the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

    …the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body…’

    Instance #1:  Two individual and complete human beings become one flesh, or one body.

    Instance #2:  The second person of the Trinity—the Word—becomes flesh. 

    Instance #3:  Bread becomes body, or flesh (in fact, the same flesh as in Instance #2).

    Can reflection on any of these instances shed light on the others?  One thing that I noticed is that the three "substances" that become flesh occupy three different planes of life:  bread (being baked) is not living but is made from plant life, i.e. non-sentient life; a pair of individual human beings are living, sentient human life, each endowed with a soul, and also (by virtue of their being two of them) a small community or social life; the Word is the divine life. 

    What more can be said of this? 


  • Statistical gem of the day

    The details are unimportant, so no direct quotes or links.  But I swear that on MPR this morning, I heard one man dismiss as worthless another man’s research because "his sample was completely unscientific and random."


  • What it might mean to love Jesus.

    When I read this meditation from Our World and Welcome To It, I knew I had to blog it—just so I wouldn’t forget it:

    But what does it mean to love Jesus more than yourself? …[h]ow would one really know that they love Jesus more than themselves? Do you love Jesus more than your spouse, for example?

    …[O]ne way to check your love for Jesus is to think back to the last time you had this thought run through your mind:

    "I really shouldn’t be saying [or doing] this."

    Now, I’m not necessarily talking about a major sin, here (although it certainly applies to breaking any one of the Ten Commandments). What I’m really thinking about is the urge to say something nasty about somebody at work, or the desire for that extra piece of cake even though the doctor’s told us to try and watch our weight. Something more subtle, in other words. But it’s a perfect opportunity for us to ask ourselves the question "Is this a test of how much I love Jesus?"

    …[I]n thinking of how to show our love for Jesus, particularly in wondering if we love Him more than we do ourselves, we should look at these small things as opportunities to prove to ourselves how much we love Him.

    So let’s look at that little temptation we’re facing. Maybe it’s not a big deal, maybe it won’t hurt anyone, but I know it’s not the right thing to do. It’s unbecoming to me, it’s beneath my dignity. I may not have changed my mind about how I feel, I might even be justified under the circumstances, but I’m going to purposely refrain from doing it, even though I really want to do it, even though it will make me feel better – because I’m more interested in making Jesus feel better than I am myself.

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but I probably heard it at least five times today that I can remember, that little voice saying "I really shouldn’t be doing this, but…" 

    And I’ll hear it again tomorrow.  Thanks for pointing out the opportunity.


  • Still trying to work out this “pre-emptive respect” thing

    Here and here I write about how techniques of artificial conception, which supposedly violate the right of the child to "be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents" (Donum Vitae), raise a question that I have trouble comprehending:

    Is it, in fact, possible to violate a right that does not yet exist, by an act that brings about the existence of those rights? Apparently so. Wrap your mind about that particular moral time warp.

    We see darkly through time’s glass. Maybe, just maybe, this will make more sense in a perspective where time itself has no meaning.

    Just a thought:  Does it seem to make more sense if instead of speaking negatively of "violating" rights (or potential rights), we speak positively of "respecting" rights (or potential rights)?

    So that the question becomes:  Is it possible to respect a right that does not exist, by refraining from an act that might (if it were engaged in) bring about the existence of that right?

    I might have to think about that a little more.  Can I, through some choice of actions, be said to act in a way that respects the rights of people who are not yet conceived, and who might in fact never be conceived?  Or is that nonsense?



  • Don’t you just love it when it seems to be aimed RIGHT AT YOU?

    I forgot to check the Proper of Seasons today, so when I started Morning Prayer today (at quarter to eleven) I used the prayers for Monday, Week 1 instead of the ones for today’s memorial.

    I’m kind of glad I made that mistake, though. I was tempted to skip prayer, after I got such a late start, and also tempted to work on private projects this afternoon instead of my Monday housework. But I resolved to stick to my Rule, to fulfill my first priority (prayer) before doing anything else, and to do the work I plan to do every Monday, trusting that there would be time to do my "own thing" later.

    The Reading for Monday, Week 1, Morning Prayer, is from 2 Thessalonians, Chapter 3. (The quote here is transcribed from my breviary—I’m not sure why it’s different—earlier edition of the NAB?)

    Anyone who would not work should not eat. We hear that some of you are unruly, not keeping busy but acting like busy-bodies. We enjoin all such, and we urge them strongly in the Lord Jesus Christ, to earn the food they eat by working quietly. You must never grow weary of doing what is right, brothers.

    Roger. Thanks. OK, back to work.


  • “Apologize to my parents, and get therapy, and I’ll marry you.”

    UPDATE 8/8/07.  One of the individuals named in the NYT story quoted below has contacted me and asked that I delete their names.  This person says that the NYT reporter mischaracterized the situation terribly, so the person is trying to reduce the embarrassment and fallout from it and wants this post to stop coming up when people Google the names.   That’s the reason for the bracketed substitutions.

    This story from the NYT (reprinted in the Strib) about unmarried couples seeking "couples therapy" struck me as kind of creepy.

    [WOMAN’S NAME] and [MAN’S NAME] met two years ago while teaching at a high school in Amherst, N.H. They planned to move in together at the start of the school year. But two weeks before the move [MAN’S NAME], 28, dropped a bomb. He didn’t want to go ahead with it. In fact he didn’t know if he wanted to be with [WOMAN’S NAME] at all….

    Finally [MAN’S NAME] decided he wanted to stay together and to marry. [WOMAN’S NAME] put forth conditions: He had to write a letter of apology to her parents; he had to cut down on his "frat-boy activities," and he had to agree to go to couples therapy. He agreed.

    The article never mentions what [he] did to [her] parents that required an apology.

    At first I thought that it was [he] and [she] who were so creepy, rather than the idea of couples therapy itself. 

    But wait.  It would be a mistake to equate this with what is known as "premarital counseling"—which is designed to guide a couple through the discussions that should take place during an engagement, in order to prepare them adequately for marriage. 

    For unwed couples encountering problems and who have decided, at least for the moment, not to break up, therapy serves as a sort of vetting system for the relationship, a role once taken by parents or religion. Today, couples seek a therapist not just to manage a crisis — for volatile arguments, when infidelity has occurred, when one person wants a commitment but the other is reluctant — but often, experts say, as validation: a second opinion on whether the relationship has legs.

    I wonder if it really means "I have now realized that marrying you would be a mistake.  I should find out if you are likely to change, before I have to admit that we need to sell our house and divide up our stuff."

    I thought this statement was alarming, though:

    Psychotherapy techniques for young, unmarried couples are no different from those for marital therapy.

    In other words, marriage therapists approach married couples with the same ideas, techniques, suggestions, attitudes that they would approach young, unmarried couples?

    There’s no difference in the eyes of therapists between "we’re married" and "we split the rent?"  The level of commitment is assumed to be the same?

    At least the therapists that the NYT writer, Zoe Wolff, bothered to interview and quote.  If I were a dedicated pro-marriage therapist—and there are many out there—I’d be pretty annoyed that  nobody bothered to get a quote from a therapist with the opinion that married couples are essentially different from couples who are not married.

    From the practical point of view of the therapist, the answer to a very important question changes:  In what circumstances is it ethical for a therapist to recommend that the couple separate?


  • Benedict XVI: Taking youth seriously.

    John Allen writes that Pope Benedict XVI has demonstrated that his attitude towards young people is as if they were, well, people. 

    Despite the fact that professional pedagogues spend a lot of time worrying about whether material is "age-appropriate" or "relevant," somewhere along the line most people have had a teacher who stands out precisely because she or he refused to assume that young people are incapable of adult thought. They acted as if young people ought to be perfectly equipped to read Flaubert, or to do advanced calculus, or to master organic chemistry, and that faith often pushed their students beyond mediocrity.


    Share NCR with your Friends

    …Such teachers pay young people the compliment of not patronizing them.

    After the 20th World Youth Day in Cologne, Germany, Pope Benedict XVI seems to be emerging as that kind of pope.

    In a world of rapid-fire, MTV-style cutaways in television programs and movies, driven by the assumption that young people have limited attention spans and thus little capacity for following a line of thought, Pope Benedict made no apologies Sunday morning for veering into a lengthy exegesis of the Greek word proskynesis and the Latin adoratio. (He later tossed in a Hebrew term, beracha, to boot). He used words such as "positivism" and "transmute" without bothering to explain them…

    Many will come away inspired because this man, whom most of the World Youth Day participants regard as brilliant and holy, didn’t water his thinking down. He didn’t act as if he was saving his best stuff for someone else — he assumed these young people were capable of meaty content.

    I like the line about "professional pedagogues."  So much of the spiritual material directed toward young people assumes that it has to put on a young mask—which is really the product of an adult’s distorted imagination.  People, including young people of course, can spot that fake a mile off.   Can’t the Gospel be spread intact even to children?

    Sounds like Benedict is going to speak his message without trying to simplify it.

    I’m reading the books Truth and Tolerance and Introduction to Christianity right now.  I picked them almost at random, the first because it sounded topical, the second because it sounded, well, introductory.   (I was half right!)

    I hope I get a chance to blog them.  They are both very dense, compared to most of the Catholic reading I do.  But they are also studded with gems—tiny moments of I never thought about it that way.  That’s amazing.