Here's a little engineering poetry
In darkness I stand,
Enclosed within a space I cannot see
A vast architectural surround
One I cannot fully know with touch, smell, hearing, or taste
Its far reaches beyond my local self
Colors, hues, textures, contrasts, and shadows,
Perspectives, wayfinding guides and cues
All telling the grand story of my structural surrounds
All lost to me without sight, without … light.
In the distance, somewhere in the darkness,
I hear the flip of a switch.
Contacts closing, electrons flowing
Filaments alighting, ballasts igniting
Sending forth light to challenge the dark
Photons and waves charging through space
Instantly filling this architectural volume,
Banishing the dark to the shadows
Shadows created by the play of light and surface
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Garbage In, Garbage Out, Garbage Piles Up
Aaargh!! Again I forget to put the garbage out. We've recently moved to a new city and I'm still trying to get used to a different trash day. This would be the third week in a row that I've forgotten to put our garbage out in the morning. (Yes I could put it out the night before, but I'm anal about the whole identity theft thing).
So I now stare into a garage with 14 white trash bags haphazardly piled up in the corner. Sigh.
Hmmm... 14 trash bags over the course of three weeks - thats a little over 4 trash bags a week for a family of four (two adults, two small children). Considering the wasteful nature that is the American way, that's probably not too bad, but let's do a little math here.
I live in a city of approximately 85,000 people. Ok, I know many of you will roll your eyes and say 85,000 is no city, but for lack of a better word let's just say city (town just doesn't seem to work for 85,000 either). Anyway, assuming the average household is composed of three people (hold your criticism, this is just a little exercise here), then there's roughly 28,333 households here. If each household puts out four bags of trash a week that's 133,332 bags of trash per week for only 85,000 people - all going to our local landfill.
If that doesn't make you stop and think at least just a little about the disproportionate affect Americans have on the environment in terms of the consumption of resources and the amount of waste we discard, then I don't know what will.
So I now stare into a garage with 14 white trash bags haphazardly piled up in the corner. Sigh.
Hmmm... 14 trash bags over the course of three weeks - thats a little over 4 trash bags a week for a family of four (two adults, two small children). Considering the wasteful nature that is the American way, that's probably not too bad, but let's do a little math here.
I live in a city of approximately 85,000 people. Ok, I know many of you will roll your eyes and say 85,000 is no city, but for lack of a better word let's just say city (town just doesn't seem to work for 85,000 either). Anyway, assuming the average household is composed of three people (hold your criticism, this is just a little exercise here), then there's roughly 28,333 households here. If each household puts out four bags of trash a week that's 133,332 bags of trash per week for only 85,000 people - all going to our local landfill.
If that doesn't make you stop and think at least just a little about the disproportionate affect Americans have on the environment in terms of the consumption of resources and the amount of waste we discard, then I don't know what will.
Marriage Metamorphosis
A version of this commentary appeared in the Albuquerque Tribune on April 8, 2004.
As the service nears completion, the priest leads the couple, hand-in-hand, around the lectern. The three find themselves warmly enveloped in the voices of the assembled that fill the church nave with song. Upon the hymn’s conclusion, the priest recites a prayer for the couple and ends with the traditional closing of:
“Amen.”
Ever so slowly, the two raise their heads – each one’s gaze penetrating to the very soul of the other. The rise and fall of their chests slightly quicken, anticipating the final pronouncement. After a nod from the priest, they lightly, gently, kiss, bathing each one’s face with the soft breath of the other. Then with an almost parental air about him, the priest joyfully presents the couple to those assembled, reciting Psalm 133:1:
“Behold how good and sweet it is for brothers to live as one.”
And with that, the union of the two men is complete.
----------------------------------------------------
While the above narrative may be a dream of many same-sex couples in the United States, it is actually based on a type of same-sex union ceremony, one might even say marriage ceremony, that was occasionally performed in Europe from at least the fifth century through the middle ages, if not later [1, 2, 3].
This ceremony was part of a Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox institution that combined the idea of a spiritual companionship with the desire of some Church members to bond with people of the same sex. These “brother-making” rituals were recorded in perhaps hundreds of Church liturgies. And within the Church’s stored collections of liturgies, they were typically placed immediately following those of different-sex ceremonies.
John Boswell, a medieval historian, has argued that the strong similarities between these early same- and different-sex ceremonies imply that both were seen as a form of marriage. But other scholars limit their view of these same-sex ceremonies to formal Church recognitions of very deep bonds of platonic friendship.
However, these ceremonies were often performed between monks and missionaries, and the same-sex, tightly knit environments of schools, monasteries, and nunneries helped foster a degree of intimacy. It is quite possible that some of these same-sex unions consisted of deep, monogamous, homosexual relationships.
Therefore, it would appear that the intellectual tradition of marriage has not been as unchanging as many would have us believe, including the President. While proposing the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on February 24, he stated the following. “After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.”
Yes, the institution of marriage has primarily been centered on the union of a man and woman for the obvious reason of propagation of the species. But it certainly hasn’t been limited to this over the course of human history, contrary to what the President and others may think. Socially acceptable “marriages” between same-sex couples have been a part of many cultures, including, but not limited to, Ancient Rome, Hellenic Greece, the Yuan and Ming dynasties of China, several African cultures, and many Native American groups throughout the New World [4,5,6].
Neither has the definition of marriage between different-sex couples remained constant throughout history. In fact recent changes include the abolishment of laws forbidding interracial marriage, still on the books in some US states well into the twentieth century [7]. Earlier Christian differences included the institutional forbiddance of second marriages and the strong discouragement of marital sex beyond what was needed for procreation [8].
So not only did Christianity limit acceptable sex to marriage, but even marital recreational sex was strongly discouraged. Can you imagine going to confession? “Yes Father, I know all of the signs of her being with child are there and have been for several months, but surely God doesn’t want us to take any chances.”
The point is that the definition of marriage as an institution and intellectual tradition has varied over time and across space, specific to the culture and time period in question. Down through the ages philosophical treatises, religious texts, codes of law, etc., have been modified, reinterpreted, and completely changed to keep up with society’s changing social and cultural norms. We humans are born, live, and then die; and intellectual traditions, including marriage, change as the generations do.
Think of a flowing river. It picks up water from its tributaries and may split downstream into two or more channels. Over time, its course may change and its banks may widen or narrow. Intellectual traditions are the same, flowing between people across time and space, changing direction, widening and narrowing as they add or discard various elements.
The changing nature of marriage as an intellectual tradition over humanity’s history means that one cannot appeal to some ideal definition of marriage etched in stone as an argument against same-sex marriages. Whatever decisions are made regarding such unions, they will have to be based on the current understanding of our past, and the current social, cultural, and political world we live in.
Sources
[1] John Boswell. 1994. Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. Villard, New York.
[2] William N. Eskridge, Jr. 1996. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage. Free Press.
[3] 1996. Social and Cultural History of Marriage. http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html.
[4] John Boswell. 1994. Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. Villard, New York.
[5] William N. Eskridge, Jr. 1996. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage. Free Press.
[6] 1996. Social and Cultural History of Marriage. http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html.
[7] Katherine Ellinghaus. 2002. Margins of Acceptability: Class, Education, and Interracial Marriage in Australia and North America. Frontiers 23 (3):55-75.
[8] David G. Hunter. 2003. Augustine and the Making of Marriage in Roman North Africa. Journal of Early Christian Studies 11:1, 63–85.
As the service nears completion, the priest leads the couple, hand-in-hand, around the lectern. The three find themselves warmly enveloped in the voices of the assembled that fill the church nave with song. Upon the hymn’s conclusion, the priest recites a prayer for the couple and ends with the traditional closing of:
“Amen.”
Ever so slowly, the two raise their heads – each one’s gaze penetrating to the very soul of the other. The rise and fall of their chests slightly quicken, anticipating the final pronouncement. After a nod from the priest, they lightly, gently, kiss, bathing each one’s face with the soft breath of the other. Then with an almost parental air about him, the priest joyfully presents the couple to those assembled, reciting Psalm 133:1:
“Behold how good and sweet it is for brothers to live as one.”
And with that, the union of the two men is complete.
----------------------------------------------------
While the above narrative may be a dream of many same-sex couples in the United States, it is actually based on a type of same-sex union ceremony, one might even say marriage ceremony, that was occasionally performed in Europe from at least the fifth century through the middle ages, if not later [1, 2, 3].
This ceremony was part of a Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox institution that combined the idea of a spiritual companionship with the desire of some Church members to bond with people of the same sex. These “brother-making” rituals were recorded in perhaps hundreds of Church liturgies. And within the Church’s stored collections of liturgies, they were typically placed immediately following those of different-sex ceremonies.
John Boswell, a medieval historian, has argued that the strong similarities between these early same- and different-sex ceremonies imply that both were seen as a form of marriage. But other scholars limit their view of these same-sex ceremonies to formal Church recognitions of very deep bonds of platonic friendship.
However, these ceremonies were often performed between monks and missionaries, and the same-sex, tightly knit environments of schools, monasteries, and nunneries helped foster a degree of intimacy. It is quite possible that some of these same-sex unions consisted of deep, monogamous, homosexual relationships.
Therefore, it would appear that the intellectual tradition of marriage has not been as unchanging as many would have us believe, including the President. While proposing the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on February 24, he stated the following. “After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.”
Yes, the institution of marriage has primarily been centered on the union of a man and woman for the obvious reason of propagation of the species. But it certainly hasn’t been limited to this over the course of human history, contrary to what the President and others may think. Socially acceptable “marriages” between same-sex couples have been a part of many cultures, including, but not limited to, Ancient Rome, Hellenic Greece, the Yuan and Ming dynasties of China, several African cultures, and many Native American groups throughout the New World [4,5,6].
Neither has the definition of marriage between different-sex couples remained constant throughout history. In fact recent changes include the abolishment of laws forbidding interracial marriage, still on the books in some US states well into the twentieth century [7]. Earlier Christian differences included the institutional forbiddance of second marriages and the strong discouragement of marital sex beyond what was needed for procreation [8].
So not only did Christianity limit acceptable sex to marriage, but even marital recreational sex was strongly discouraged. Can you imagine going to confession? “Yes Father, I know all of the signs of her being with child are there and have been for several months, but surely God doesn’t want us to take any chances.”
The point is that the definition of marriage as an institution and intellectual tradition has varied over time and across space, specific to the culture and time period in question. Down through the ages philosophical treatises, religious texts, codes of law, etc., have been modified, reinterpreted, and completely changed to keep up with society’s changing social and cultural norms. We humans are born, live, and then die; and intellectual traditions, including marriage, change as the generations do.
Think of a flowing river. It picks up water from its tributaries and may split downstream into two or more channels. Over time, its course may change and its banks may widen or narrow. Intellectual traditions are the same, flowing between people across time and space, changing direction, widening and narrowing as they add or discard various elements.
The changing nature of marriage as an intellectual tradition over humanity’s history means that one cannot appeal to some ideal definition of marriage etched in stone as an argument against same-sex marriages. Whatever decisions are made regarding such unions, they will have to be based on the current understanding of our past, and the current social, cultural, and political world we live in.
Sources
[1] John Boswell. 1994. Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. Villard, New York.
[2] William N. Eskridge, Jr. 1996. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage. Free Press.
[3] 1996. Social and Cultural History of Marriage. http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html.
[4] John Boswell. 1994. Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. Villard, New York.
[5] William N. Eskridge, Jr. 1996. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage. Free Press.
[6] 1996. Social and Cultural History of Marriage. http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html.
[7] Katherine Ellinghaus. 2002. Margins of Acceptability: Class, Education, and Interracial Marriage in Australia and North America. Frontiers 23 (3):55-75.
[8] David G. Hunter. 2003. Augustine and the Making of Marriage in Roman North Africa. Journal of Early Christian Studies 11:1, 63–85.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Still A Thrill: The Olympic Games ideal to reach deeper and aim for the stars inspires us and gives us hope
A version of this commentary appeared in the Albuquerque Tribune on August 24, 2004.
Citius. Altius. Fortius. Or for those of us whose Latin is a little rusty – Faster. Higher. Stronger. The motto of our modern Olympic games encompassed in three simple words.
Simple yes, but also elegant and full of meaning on multiple levels, extolling all involved (athletes, organizers, and observers) to reach deeper, aim for the stars, and give it your all. Such participation, according to the Olympic Charter [1], is done peacefully, without discrimination, and in a spirit of friendship, solidarity, and fair play.
And despite the games numerous flaws – despite the doping scandals, the huge egos (of both athletes and nations), the dangling carrot of endorsement money, the media’s over dramatization, and the threat of terrorism – despite all of this, I still experience a thrill watching the Olympics.
It’s a thrill born from my sports exploits as a youth, set in the context of the Olympic ideals. A thrill experienced by countless individuals across the globe, no matter the sport played, even if just weekend games between friends and family. And yet the origin of this shared experience goes even deeper. For sport, athleticism, and the coming together in competition form part of what it is to be human.
Roaming the planet, our hunter/gatherer ancestors honed many of the skills we associate with modern athletes: strength, endurance, speed, patience, concentration, cunning, focus, and courage. All were important for foraging, hunting, fishing, fending off predators, exploring unknown environments, and just generally surviving on a daily basis.
So important were these skills, that “downtime” was probably spent to some degree perfecting them through activities such as sport. And in fact, cave paintings from Southern Europe and Northern Africa do depict figures performing such things as running, jumping, swimming, and throwing [2, 3].
Such skills would also have well served our hunter/gatherer ancestors in war. Down through the ages, sport has become intertwined with combat and warfare – each seen in some ways as training for the other [4]. Certainly the training for sport would have helped fortify a bond between comrades essential for success in war.
Consider the prehistoric ballgame of the Americas. This ancient team sport, played from northern South America up into the American Southwest, was commonly associated with warfare. Ballplayers were warriors, and the training for each overlapped. The ballgame sometimes served as a proxy for warfare with the losers paying the ultimate price – their lives through human sacrifice.
The link between sport and war may be ancient, but so is the link between sport and peace. Our hunter/gatherer ancestors traveled about in relatively small, kin-based groups – groups that no doubt experiencing testy relationships with one another from time to time. But periodically they would have come together for such things as the exchange of resources, one of the more important being genetic – obtaining a mate outside of one’s own kin group.
Various sporting activities in addition to rituals and feasting would probably have been common at these gatherings. Competitive games would have provided one means of diffusing rivalries that may have existed between some of the kin groups – acting as a proxy for armed conflict similar to ballgame of the Americas just discussed, as well as uniting the various groups in common play.
Ideally, the ancient Olympic games of the Greeks were to be carried out under a state of truce. But as with most human endeavors, the ideal was not always met. Though it was fairly successful in protecting the participants and spectators traveling to and from the games.
Our modern Olympics carry on the goal of protecting the athletes and promoting diplomatic solutions to international conflicts. The winter and summer games provide a means of diffusing international rivalries through peaceful competition via shared sporting activities, as well as through the global viewing of those sporting events.
We get a chance to see and root for athletes as they attempt to compete Faster, reach Higher, and be Stronger. We watch as they compete in team and individual sports whose roots trace to all parts of the globe.
We root for athletes from our own nation, but also those from elsewhere – those whose personal stories we connect with. Athlete and viewer become bonded in a common experience.
Admittedly, the Olympic ideals are never fully met. Cheating is ever present, and neither Nations nor terrorist groups cease hostilities. But the dream of those ideals is never lost.
With the advent of every Olympic games we are reminded of our own individual sports experiences. And the world at large comes face to face with its common hunter/gatherer past, writ on a global scale. It comes together to share an experience of competition, and to see that others from the other side of the globe aren’t so different. It reinforces the relationship of sports with peace as opposed to war. And as long as that’s so, we still have hope.
Resources
[1] International Olympic Committee (IOC). 2003. Olympic Charter. ISBN 92-9149-001-6. August, 2003. International Olympic Committee, Lausanne. Switzerland. http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/charter_uk.asp.
[2] Pp. 18-19, H. W. Jansen. 1967. History of Art. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[3] P. 131. A. Strenk. 1979. What Price Victory? The World of International Sports and Politics. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 445:128-140.
[4] Pp. 586-587. N. Crowther. 1999. Sports, Nationalism, and Peace in Ancient Greece. Peace Review 11(4):585-589.
Citius. Altius. Fortius. Or for those of us whose Latin is a little rusty – Faster. Higher. Stronger. The motto of our modern Olympic games encompassed in three simple words.
Simple yes, but also elegant and full of meaning on multiple levels, extolling all involved (athletes, organizers, and observers) to reach deeper, aim for the stars, and give it your all. Such participation, according to the Olympic Charter [1], is done peacefully, without discrimination, and in a spirit of friendship, solidarity, and fair play.
And despite the games numerous flaws – despite the doping scandals, the huge egos (of both athletes and nations), the dangling carrot of endorsement money, the media’s over dramatization, and the threat of terrorism – despite all of this, I still experience a thrill watching the Olympics.
It’s a thrill born from my sports exploits as a youth, set in the context of the Olympic ideals. A thrill experienced by countless individuals across the globe, no matter the sport played, even if just weekend games between friends and family. And yet the origin of this shared experience goes even deeper. For sport, athleticism, and the coming together in competition form part of what it is to be human.
Roaming the planet, our hunter/gatherer ancestors honed many of the skills we associate with modern athletes: strength, endurance, speed, patience, concentration, cunning, focus, and courage. All were important for foraging, hunting, fishing, fending off predators, exploring unknown environments, and just generally surviving on a daily basis.
So important were these skills, that “downtime” was probably spent to some degree perfecting them through activities such as sport. And in fact, cave paintings from Southern Europe and Northern Africa do depict figures performing such things as running, jumping, swimming, and throwing [2, 3].
Such skills would also have well served our hunter/gatherer ancestors in war. Down through the ages, sport has become intertwined with combat and warfare – each seen in some ways as training for the other [4]. Certainly the training for sport would have helped fortify a bond between comrades essential for success in war.
Consider the prehistoric ballgame of the Americas. This ancient team sport, played from northern South America up into the American Southwest, was commonly associated with warfare. Ballplayers were warriors, and the training for each overlapped. The ballgame sometimes served as a proxy for warfare with the losers paying the ultimate price – their lives through human sacrifice.
The link between sport and war may be ancient, but so is the link between sport and peace. Our hunter/gatherer ancestors traveled about in relatively small, kin-based groups – groups that no doubt experiencing testy relationships with one another from time to time. But periodically they would have come together for such things as the exchange of resources, one of the more important being genetic – obtaining a mate outside of one’s own kin group.
Various sporting activities in addition to rituals and feasting would probably have been common at these gatherings. Competitive games would have provided one means of diffusing rivalries that may have existed between some of the kin groups – acting as a proxy for armed conflict similar to ballgame of the Americas just discussed, as well as uniting the various groups in common play.
Ideally, the ancient Olympic games of the Greeks were to be carried out under a state of truce. But as with most human endeavors, the ideal was not always met. Though it was fairly successful in protecting the participants and spectators traveling to and from the games.
Our modern Olympics carry on the goal of protecting the athletes and promoting diplomatic solutions to international conflicts. The winter and summer games provide a means of diffusing international rivalries through peaceful competition via shared sporting activities, as well as through the global viewing of those sporting events.
We get a chance to see and root for athletes as they attempt to compete Faster, reach Higher, and be Stronger. We watch as they compete in team and individual sports whose roots trace to all parts of the globe.
We root for athletes from our own nation, but also those from elsewhere – those whose personal stories we connect with. Athlete and viewer become bonded in a common experience.
Admittedly, the Olympic ideals are never fully met. Cheating is ever present, and neither Nations nor terrorist groups cease hostilities. But the dream of those ideals is never lost.
With the advent of every Olympic games we are reminded of our own individual sports experiences. And the world at large comes face to face with its common hunter/gatherer past, writ on a global scale. It comes together to share an experience of competition, and to see that others from the other side of the globe aren’t so different. It reinforces the relationship of sports with peace as opposed to war. And as long as that’s so, we still have hope.
Resources
[1] International Olympic Committee (IOC). 2003. Olympic Charter. ISBN 92-9149-001-6. August, 2003. International Olympic Committee, Lausanne. Switzerland. http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/charter_uk.asp.
[2] Pp. 18-19, H. W. Jansen. 1967. History of Art. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[3] P. 131. A. Strenk. 1979. What Price Victory? The World of International Sports and Politics. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 445:128-140.
[4] Pp. 586-587. N. Crowther. 1999. Sports, Nationalism, and Peace in Ancient Greece. Peace Review 11(4):585-589.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)