i never mentioned it
because i thought it didn’t matter -
    it was quite a while ago now.
it was sometime in the fall;
    i don’t recall the date.

it didn’t seem important.

i really tried to keep it alive,
    though i probably had no business
    owning an orchid.
they’re too fragile.

the first time i forgot to water it
    it sprouted a new leaf.
    well, i thought, it thrives on neglect.

but the second time,
    it was out in the sun,
    and the leaf died,
    and then the rest died.

well, i thought, there goes another one.
     i really liked that one, too.

it’s too bad it died.
i never even got to see it bloom;
    but it’s my own fault.

for a while the pot
    sat out on the patio;
    an empty bowl full of dirt -
a flower’s corpse.

someone came along and planted something else in the pot.

i didn’t know that it had been done
    until i noticed the green shoots
    that shouldn’t have been there.

what business do green onions have,
growing in the roots of my orchid?
    i never gave them permission.

and they probably won’t die, either -
     pernicious things.

it’s too bad that it died:
    my orchid, i mean.
    i really liked it.

i had great hopes that it would live
and bloom again.

but then i killed it;
    i didn’t mean to -
    i just forgot to water it.

i guess orchids can only be so independent.

    but i probably had no business owning an orchid anyway. 

i wish that orchid hadn’t died. 

this special time of the semester has allowed me to re-discover the difference between perception and reality:  what i think my students know, what my students think they know, and what my students actually know are entirely separate entities.  unfortunately, this translates into them having done very poorly on their exams.

which leaves me with a huge dilemma:  do i assume that i’ve simply thrown too much information at them, and back off; or do i rest uncomfortably in my suspicion that they just didn’t study?  either way, i still have the problem of how to proceed from this point, since most of the topics we’re working on compound knowledge from segment to segment.  in other words, since they apparently haven’t "gotten it", how much can i count of them to "step up" and "catch up", and how much do i simply have to review before we can move on?

i really don’t like the idea of going back over things they should already know; but if they don’t solidify their understanding of these ideas now, the rest of the semester(s) will just be lost on them.  the question is, how much do i have to review before i re-burden them with the responsibility for learning the material?

1. Location:  from Dayton, OH SE 500 miles to Greensboro, NC
2. Marital Status:  from Single to Married
3. Academic Standing:  from Graduate to Student
4. Ownership of Pet(s):  two kittens
5. Expectations of Others:  academically an exponential rise

Things That Have Not Changed:

1. Socio-Economic Status:  still in the 0% tax bracket.  the IRS actually paid me to file taxes this year.
2. Social Life:  none
3. Expectations of Others:  business/socially the same
4. Expectations of Myself:  high
5. Projected Fulfillment of Goals:  low
6. Ambitions:  many
7. Motivation:  insignificant

"let’s go see a movie this afternoon."

"can’t - sorry; there’s supposed to be a rip in the time-space continuum today at 3 o’clock, and i really have to take advantage of it if i’m going to get this report done by Friday."

to elucidate a bit.  i was traveling for almost the entire month of February, first to Cincinnati for a wedding, then to Cinci, Greensboro, NC and Austin, TX for auditions.  needless to say, i was greatly relieved when it was over.  for the most part, i thought all the auditions went well, although my efforts were obviously best received in Greensboro.  for that reason primarily, i felt fairly confident that i would be accepted, offered an assistantship, and would be very highly likely to enroll, whether or not i was accepted elsewhere.  as it turns out, i won’t need to deliberate about that.

i received a letter from CCM (Cincinnati) only ten days after my audition.  since it was my third attempt - which ironically is supposed to be "the charm" - i was not surprised when it wasn’t exactly good news.  conversely, i wasn’t surprised when i received my acceptance letter from UNCG (Greensboro).  (sidenote:  that was the first actual letter of acceptance that i’ve ever gotten.)  UT (Texas) was a toss up, though - i had no idea how it would turn out, and spent many weeks expecting the worst and secretly hoping for the opportunity to suffer through the agonies of having to make a "big decision".  no such luck.  i got my note o’rejection this afternoon - finally.  i’m always surprised at how long it takes some schools to "break the news".

this little love-letter came at a particularly bad time.  while in Miamisburg in February, i "broke the news" to my parents about the longevity of a situation that they had made it clear they did not endorse.  in itself an extremely difficult afternoon, but after which they in a sense got over it - pretty quickly, i might add - and decided to start planning an event (to take place in July) for which there has at yet been no formal announcement made.  hence my irritating beat-around-the-bush language.  all that to say that while traveling and auditioning, i’ve also been attempting to make big plans long-distance, which to date hasn’t worked out so well.  it’s been extremely frustrating, compounded by the fact that Mom has been particularly busy and hasn’t always been the most forthright with information - which she hasn’t had, because she’s been too busy to get it, but without which it is impossible for me to plan/organize.  and being long-distance, i get worked up over things because there’s nothing i can actually do about them, so it’s been a real pain.  and still not getting done - at this point due to contacts who seem to think they have until doomsday to return my phone calls.

as if that weren’t enough, my living arrangement in Tell City has rapidly become somewhat of an emotional disaster for me, having partly to do with the afore-mentioned pressures but more directly a result of the complexity of the situation compounded by Grandma’s increasing inability to make reasonable judgements and stubbornly irrational fight for independence.  of course it is difficult  - and sometimes impossible - to deal with the slipping away of one’s faculties, both mental and physical, not to mention the fact that it may not be a circumstance of which we are aware; however, it is tragically problematic to have to deal with and look out for a person who refuses to accept the reality of that circumstance.  how do you convince a person that they need your help when they don’t recognize their own limitations?  how do you handle someone who is apparently convinced that your goal is to limit the freedom and capacity that you’re trying so hard to preserve?  as a frivolous but apt example, which is better:  to indulge your taste for high-fat foods because "life’s too short" and "a little won’t hurt" (even though a "little" on a regular basis isn’t little); or to watch your fat intake by trying to explore and enjoy alternatives - although not what you’re used to - and avoid yet another medication that has very harsh, freedom-imparing side effects and improve your quality of life to boot?  (guess which option i prefer.)  reality dictates that the choices Grandma is making now by willfully (though perhaps not lucidly) behaving as if she can go on forever without making lifestyle changes will very quickly, and very abruptly, bring her to the end of her "grace period", when she’ll have no choice but to face the facts of the irrevokability of what she has allowed herself to become.  and it is ridiculously frustrating to watch that happen.

sometimes the rejoinder of "it’ll all be over soon" - a particular favorite of mine - has the opposite of its intended effect.  instead of comforting with the promise of better times, it serves simply as a reminder of the failure of the present hour.  there are no "do-overs" that allow us to re-write our struggles into victories; no second chances that can regain the time we’ve lost.  there is only the possibility that if we keep trying, without giving up - without letting go of the moments we think are lost - that we might make up the distance, and overcome in the end.

how depressing is it to have all the time in the world to do what you want to do, but not have the energy to actually do it?

i was in a land i can’t identify; although i did not know it, i belonged there.  it was a desert, and there were many people.  my general location was on a flat plain (of sand) at the bottom of some sort of hill or dune, although most of the time i was inside a room (some sort of house, i think).  behind me was a large body of water, not a river, but splitting the land mass we were on from another distant one.  for some reason, the "people" thought i could tell the future, so for a while, i played along with the joke, amusing myself by making general observances and winking at the ones who knew it was a ruse (although i think there may have been one or two others, it was mainly a large number of dwarves - but they weren’t telling).  i suppose i should mention that the entire tenor of the dream was fairly "Lord of the Rings":  i was wearing a cape, as were most of the people around me.  it may be worth mentioning that it was a dark red cape with a hood, but there was some sort of pattern or design on it in purple and gold.  also, i think there was a gold clasp.

it appeared that the masses were lining up outside this "room" - which was at the top of the hill - to speak to me.  so i ran up the hill, expecting it to be a difficult climb because of the sand; strangely, i made it up quickly and with little effort.  i went into the little room, noticing that my next guests were my friends the dwarves, in the line along with everyone else, dressed also in capes, but in the very brightest of shades of yellow and red, alternately.  when they came in and sat down, they seemed to wait for me to say something, and i, enjoying the inside joke, told them to "ask me something"; but they didn’t - and i think it was at that point that the dream changed a bit.

suddenly, but without a "realization" during the dream, it was all real.  i was "in charge" - some sort of "wise woman" in a position of leadership because of…some assumed power, i suppose.  it was never clear to me specifically why i was in charge, and i definitely wasn’t any sort of political ruler; i think it had something to do with that future-vision.  but the strangest thing, i think, was that i never questioned it - and even to an extent had rather strong expectations of myself.

anyway, at this point three things occured:  one, i knew that i had some sort of power; two, i knew that a three-years war was coming; and three, that there was a woman outside in the line that was important to our "side".  i left the room to find her, but even though she had come "to see me", she turned away as i approached.  for some reason, she "wasn’t convinced" of me, my power, something - i’m not sure.  i tried to stop her, but she wouldn’t listen.  i think i said something to her about the the three-years war - because for some reason, she was important in it - and then the tone changed a little again.  for some reason, as i called to her, i called myself Wisdom (as in, a name or title; also as in, Wisdom, personified as a woman in the book of Proverbs) and i think i started to quote some verse from Proverbs as she ran away.  but again, it was strange in that i didn’t "call" myself Wisdom, i was Wisdom, because i was calling to her; and i wasn’t "quoting" anything i was actually saying it.  i don’t have any other idea who she was, but she was clad in gray and hooded - the opposite of my vibrant colors; but for all that, very like myself.  (a side note:  there were actually two people, important to our side, that i went out to see, but the other one never appeared in my dream)  i went back into the room and explained that i’d gone to see two important "followers" - whatever that meant - but that they wouldn’t come in.

i don’t know if something happened or i just knew it, but at that moment the lower plain was being invaded, so i turned toward the "back" of the place i was in - but it became a fortress built at the top of that sand dune, with a thick but short wall overlooking the plain and the water, rather like some sort of porch jutting out from a cave.  i don’t remember the name exactly, but i was watching "Midrath", king of the goblins (or were they gremlins?) and his army pour across the sand.  the three-years war was beginning, and i wasn’t exactly ready for it - i felt very caught up short - but it was also very clear what i had to do.  Midrath, or whatever his name was, had to be made aware that i was in charge - that i was the responsible party, so to speak.  (for some reason, i also knew that there was some sort of "challenge" to be made, or a confrontation; he wasn’t just sweeping in for a silent massacre; and also, that he would be looking for me, in some fashion.  not "me" per say, but the person in charge.)

so i ran to the wall and started down the left side (slightly down the hill) and started yelling something along the lines of "speak to me!" but there was too much noise.  so without stopping to question, one of those "assumed powers" kicked in and i said something like, "silence, noise of wind and noise of battle! silence, i say!"  and then i went back up to the porch and climbed up onto the wall and yelled again, "Midrath, king of the goblins, speak to me!"  and this time, my voice was loud and deep and carried - no, resounded across the plain.  and i got their attention.

now at this point, i was aware of two very distinct sensations:  that of being utterly confident, and that of being very afraid.  i was standing on a wall over a very large hill of sand and didn’t relish the idea of falling; also, and even more prominently in my mind, i was in a very vulnerable position - well lit, high up, very visible, and - well, i had just drawn attention to myself in a major way.  i might be shot at with arrows, or one of those little monsters might throw his flaming torch at me.  and there i stood.  and Midrath was getting ready to make his statement.

and i woke up.

i think that was the strangest dream i’ve ever had.  it felt ultra real, intense, and very important, for some inexplicable reason.  normally when i remember feelings i’ve had in dreams, they’re along the lines of, trapped, forced, "it’s beyond my control" - that sort of thing.  but in this - i’ve never felt so empowered before.  i knew.  i was.  i did.

plus it was an interesting story.

the little words, fighting like maniacs to escape
my overfull but still reluctant mind
kept leaping off the page and into darkness,
even before i pressed the "backspace" key.
they disappeared.
one day they’ll return, i said,
when they get hungry and don’t know where else to go.
i said this to myself,
because the words were already gone.

i strummed the keys with my fingers,
as if the rhythmic sound would call them back,
like a primitive drum,
summoning its fierce and fiercely loyal warriors;
but there was no response.
i waited.
maybe i’m too impatient, i said
(to myself again, of course).

i listened.
their whispers, the rustling of unwritten pages,
came faintly to my straining ears.
i typed some more -
still nothing.  i sighed,
hoping they would sense my loneliness.
don’t be silly, i said to myself.
you’re not alone….

and then…

they sprang onto the empty space,
crowding over themselves,
lining up,
busy little black ants made all of legs -
they laughed at me,
saying without a sound,

"and yet you are."

on this front - that of science and logic - there is a great and utterly rabid debate between proponents of intelligent design (ID), who assert that evolutionists themselves throw away the rules of scientific inquiry to espouse a theory full of gaps and misinformation in an effort to debunk religion; while evolutionists vehemently denounce ID-ers, citing the same reasons:  that intelligent design is an assault on true science meant to subjugate free-thinkers with the shackles of dogmatism.

i like to think of myself as a free-thinker.  i am also a proponent of intelligent design.  i have never thought that that made me less of an intelligent or logical person, but i’m sure there are those who would say so.  by the same token, evolutionists make very little sense to me.  not that i wish to do them any disrespect, but i do not think they have all understanding so that they can dismiss obections to their theories with a wave of the hand and a curt "you don’t know what you’re talking about".  to this end, i’d like to respond to an article entitled Why Intelligent Design Isn’t About Evolution on a semi-point-by-point basis.

(all quotations from the article intended to exemplify the author’s points, not take them out of context.  if you feel that an idea is improperly represented, please let me know.)

"[Jonathon Wells] and Michael Behe and Dembski like to make an "argument from complexity." Basically they haven’t got past the 3rd grader’s observation of "Wow, the world is complicated…"

The view that "Wow, the world is complicated…" is hardly a 3rd grade observation in that people of all ages and educations can, and have, made it.  it may be a simplistic one, but it is nonetheless true.  this is not to say, however, that the observation should stop there; it is merely an opening remark.  to allege that an "argument from complexity" is made and contained in that observation is itself simplistic, ignoring both the truth of the statement, and denouncing the arguments that follow based on the non-complexity of the statement.  conversely, it seems illogical to propose the opposite:  that the world is simple, as science would have little to explain, much less continue to discover, if that were the case.  so we don’t disagree that the world is complex, but the implication here is that for ID theorists, the argument, and thus the discovery, ends there.  this is hardly the case.  there is no less impetus for the ID crowd to discover, re-discover, explain, and refine the "hows" of our universe than there is for the evolutionist.  simply because the IDer pre-supposes that the universe came into existence by design, intent, purpose, and forethought does not mean that all questions must cease with the "great mystery of creation".  of course not.  ID merely acknowledges that the complexity of the universe, it’s laws and systems are beyond our (humans’) ability to re-create.  explore and understand, to the infinite magnitude of its (and our) existence, definitely; but not create or re-create.  evolutionists start with the presupposition that all this complexity arose by chance, natural selection and processes and therefore must eventually be reproducable in a test tube, so to speak.  this argument however, is not logical, since for an organism to create or develop intelligence or ability beyond itself is beyond itself.  (more on this in a future post)

"[The Argument from Wowness] presupposes a view that humans are either incapable or not allowed to mentally dig beyond the Wow Observation using the same mental tools as before. The supposed intractability of such Wow Observations ("It’s just too complex!!") implies that we’re either supposed to be omniscient, or that we’re intractably retarded."

an interesting point.  it actually implies neither, but it is understandable how one could assume so.  first of all, humans are neither intractably retarded nor omniscient.  given.  the so-called Wow Observations could not possibly imply that we are incapable of learning, since the mere acknowledgement of complexity needs some basis of understanding of the many and varied functions of a system, regardless of the system in question; but they imply neither that we must have all knowledge to understand.  it does mean that we must first be capable of understanding, which we are, but on a limited basis.  we are finite beings, not infinite ones; therefore, we are limited to finite knowledge.  supposing that we were able to create a universe in a lab, we would be able to understand it - we brought it into being, we "contain" it.  but if we can’t - we can’t understand - fully - how it came to be.  we may be able to understand the mechanisms and the processes, but we cannot comprehend that which is beyond our capability.  that is why science demands that a hypothesis be testable in order to be considered "science".  there is an interesting parallel here in physicists’ string theory, which some scientists write off as non-plausible and unscientific because it is, at least at the present time, untestable; this, i think, is perfectly legitimate.  string theory is merely an idea - numerically, it works, as far as we know, but that’s all we know.  it could be right, it could be wrong.  we can’t prove it either way.  does this mean that string theory has nothing to do with science?  of course not.  it simply means that until further developments, we can’t watch it in action.  but it is still valid as an idea, because all scientific hypotheses are ideas - some are right, some are wrong, some are testable, others are undeveloped.  do scientists have any right to dream up ideas that are untestable?  it would be spurious to for any self-acclaimed free-thinker to say no, but are those ideas then automatically relegated to the dust-bins of non-science?  somehow i don’t think that’s necessarily what happens - or what should happen.  but it’s definitely worth some thought.

"ID is not just an alternative viewpoint, or an a-scientific position, it’s an anti-scientific concept, because if it’s accepted as a valid way of investigating the world… all investigation stops! You don’t get past the point of wonder…Put away your calculators and test tubes, lock the lab door behind you and go to church. That’s all you can do."

again, this is a misunderstanding of the ID concept.  ID does not negate the value of investigation and inquiry.  it merely ackowledges its limitation - which is not limiting at all, actually, since it is only the limit of everything we can possibly understand plus the tipping of the cap to the idea that there may be things we cannot understand simply because we are human.  on the other hand, it seems illogical to expect that from chaos and mere chance, an evolutionist can expect to understand and make predictions about future scientific happenings.  put away your calculators and test tubes, lock the lab door behind you and go to church.  that’s all you can do, because you can’t possibly hope to explain something that has no meaning.  right?  but wait…there are laws.  rules.  patterns.  even "chaos" theory is a set of mathematical equations that explain patterns in seemingly random occurences.  the point being, there is design, there is order, there is room for learning and understanding.  we do not disagree.

"ID proponents claim that ID is compatible with science, but basically they’ve just worked hard to explain away all the methods and knowledge that already exist."

not to belabor the point, but it is compatible with science, not because it replaces science, or even because it is science, but because it does not deny science.  no (legitimate) IDer will try to "explain away" the methods that exist; but the accuracy of those methods (and knowledge) can be challenged; should be challenged; always will be challenged, refined, further developed and expanded.  they will be subjected to "especially harsh scrutiny" on both sides of the fence.

"Apart from their explanations being logically, scientifically and philosophically wrong (and they’re very good at selling these invalid arguments, preying upon subtle and common errors in thinking and language), this sort of approach doesn’t let you do anything truly new…Science stalls, knowledge stops, thinking vanishes."

i guess i would need a more specific example here to actually comment on.  obviously, i’m not going to admit to an invalid argument, subtle or common errors in thinking or language until they are pointed out to me.  as for the rest of the comment ("…thinking vanishes"), well, if my thinking has truly vanished, it won’t do me any good to try and refute that, now will it?

"ID is not about evolution. It’s not even about biology. It’s about how to think, and that applies to all branches of science, all areas of intellectual activity, all human action."

this is very much true.  and most people don’t get that - which makes it, in fact, a very important assertion.  no matter what you think you know about the world, you had to start with some presuppositions.  you had/have a viewpoint.  evolutionists start with the assumption that matter sprang spontaneously into being, since God can’t be proven.  IDers start with the assumption the matter was brought into being by intention, since God can’t be disproven.  granted, i happen to think, based on those and many other ideas that IDers have one up on the evolutionists - but it’s really a matter of where you start; and where you start has more to do with "religion" than "science".  after all, secular humanism is just as much a religion - or system of beliefs - as any Western (or Eastern, for that matter) religion you could name.  it just starts with man as the center, instead of God.

"ID is nothing less than a veiled advocacy for a return to the Dark Ages."

the author is under the mistaken assumption, once again, that IDers are playing the traditional role of the "Church" (and by this i mean the establishment of religion that did indeed subjugate scientists and philosophers - in addition to musicians, artists, teachers, explorers, and many others - throughout history to maintain its hold on the political and ideological fronts that gave it power) in today’s society.  ID is a proponent of science, not an antagonist toward it - IDers have absolutely nothing to gain by attempting to rein science back from growth and discovery.

"…I can have sympathy for the Average Joes of the populace getting hoodwinked by ID, who have only mediocre levels of science education or intellectual agility…Because ID proponents prey on people’s thinking skills…."

this, i have to say, is just offensive.  i will freely admit that i do not have the most extensive science education, but i will put my "intellectual agility" up against the best of them.  period.  to discard a person’s intelligence along with their ideas or beliefs is arrogant at best, and bigoted at worst.  i am a musician, and a highly trained one at that; but i would never judge a person’s intellectual abilities based on their knowledge - or lack of it - of music.  in the same way, just because i don’t know all there is to know about science doesn’t mean i don’t know how to think about it.  and i do a lot of reading, so i’m not entirely uninformed.

"What this problem requires is unabridged thinking - showing people how to think accurately, usefully, and cumulatively about the world…It doesn’t require omniscience…."

again, very true.  but i disagree with - and take a certain amount of offense to - the implication that all IDers are deficient thinkers.  that is a wholy egocentric, uninformed insinuation.

"At the end of the day, ID is an assault on epistemology, not evolution. Evolution is the convenient voodoo doll through which ID is trying to kill the human mind."

true, epistemology; not true, trying to kill the human mind.  i think both sides would agree that they’re trying to "wake the others up".

"I hold the most knowledgeable people - the Wells and Behes and Dembskis of the world - explicitly culpable…I will freely and knowledgably denounce them to the ends of the earth, in defense of my own mind and the world in which I live."

incidently, i have never read any of Wells, Behe, or Dembski; i haven’t even heard of two of them.  and while i ackowledge the point - those with power or knowledge have more responsibility than those without - i hardly think that a such a denunciation will have any effect on my mind.  why?  because i, like the author, demand the recognition of having my own thoughts.  i will not hold any one else responsible for what i choose to think.  there may be influential persons, but my thoughts are my own.  (anyone could say this)  i have not been subjugated, propagandized, brainwashed, or indoctrinated; and i contend that even though i do not believe that from random mutations arose the incredible array of life and intelligent beings that exist, i am not stupid.