I'm typing on my phone tonight,  so excuse the typos.

I've been reading Dhalgren lately.  I'm not really far enough into it to make a full assessment about it,  but so far it isn't that confusing -- and i mention that because all the reviews said it was confusing.  It strikes me just as like a scifi, post apocalyptic,  slice-of-life story... like Nichijou but for adults, and with symbolism and social commentary instead of humor. Some commentators said it challenges the reader's perceptions about the relationship between reader and author by never delivering things that the reader feels entitled to. I gather from that,  and from the story so far,  that there probably won't be a clear rising conflict and resolution.  I don't mind that, and maybe it's because I like the slice of life genre,  and that genre doesn't have the features of a normal drama. It won't bother me if the story is like this the entire time.

The slice of life genre naturally lends itself to social commentary anyway,  but Delany seems to be self aware enough to bring his social commentary a few steps deeper than any other social commentary I've seen like this.  Again I still have a long way to go in the book,  but I've been very impressed so far with his attention to the impressions people can have about their surroundings which can't be described directly,  but which nonetheless exist.  The best way to describe those sensations (I think) is by drawing relationships between commonly experienced phenomena which illicit the same unique sensation or emotion. Those analogies can highlight emotions for which we don't have words,  and Delany does it really well,  without being too direct about it -- the analogies are made naturally by means of the events in the story. 

Anyway,  on a personal note,  I'm stressed. I keep feeling like I want to say something -- to reconcile myself with my situation by means of some kind of apology or something, as if circumstance were an estranged friend,  but I don't really have anything plain to say about it, and that's just as frustrating as the situation itself. 

I'm tired.  I'm gonna go to sleep. 

"It does not offer me any protection,  this mist; rather a refracting grid through which to view the violent machine,  explore the technocracy of the eye itself,  spelunk the semi circular canal.  I am traveling my own optic nerve."

Not sure how I didn't notice this song like a year ago:

Baddest grandmas in the business.

I engaged with an atheist online recently and he told me that all medicine and ... actually hold on, let me go get the quote, because this is really good. He'd asked me to give an example of a scientific advancement produced as the result of creation science. I don't think that succeeding or failing at his challenge will produce data relevant to the validity of creation science (for the record, I have no idea whether creation science has produced any information except for that which is immediately relevant to measuring the validity of creation science). So, to demonstrate that the challenge is based on a categorical error about the nature and purpose of the field, I asked him to offer me an example of an application of the scientific method (a successful experiment) or a new technology whose development was so dependent on the theory of evolution that it could not have been produced or executed without applying the theory of evolution. He gave me a long response, but this was the meat of it:

"The development of all new medicines, the science of vaccination...sociology, psychology... NONE of these fields have ever been advanced because of or from a creationist belief."

Idk, I mean, it's such a broad claim, and it's so easy to disprove that I'm exhausted by it (I've got examples floating around in my head at this very moment). I don't want to do the work to demonstrate that this guy is wrong, because the fact that he's willing to make and believe that kind of claim in the first place makes me wonder if the rabbit hole of hyperbole will only go deeper if I proceed. But at the same time, I feel like I shouldn't give up on him -- that I should try to help him along and guide him through questioning these things. Even if he doesn't become Christian, maybe at least I can get him to realize that it's ok to question one's own views. What's right?

On the other hand, I guess I should have predicted his response. Maybe he's a product of our school system -- trained and conditioned by long hours of repetition to think that that all kinds of scientific advancement are made possible because of the similarities that we've found between ourselves and animals -- as if we weren't dissecting frogs and sheep before Darwin came along and pointed out that both us and them have digestive systems. So with my challenge, I should have expected that he would give all science and theory as his example and I would have to show him for each thing, "that technology could have been (or was) developed without ever considering evolution at all.". Note to self, take a different approach next time.

But this exercise did get me thinking a bit: Evolution and old-earth are espoused by nearly every media outlet. Every time someone says "millions/billions years ago ______", I remember that I'm not part of this culture. Imagine disagreeing with every source of media you consume. Imagine picking apart every science lesson after school in order to make a distinction between interpolated theories and hard applications of the scientific method, and then developing a rubric for evaluating the merit of a theory. What is the precise difference in empirical weightiness between germ theory and cell theory and why? What about the theory of gravity vs the theory of molecular orbits? Where exactly does the theory of evolution fit on the scale? Imagine being told from all sides "you're wrong", and  asking yourself the question on a daily basis, "am I really wrong?"

Christians regularly get accused of failing to think critically. But Christianity is barred from public schools -- what critical thinking is necessary to swallow the contents of your biology textbook when you're shown nothing else? What critical thinking is necessary to swallow the contents of your Bible when you're shown only evolution in school? I think it's the role of parents to help their kids along, to encourage a healthy measure of self-doubt and walk their kids through reasonable approaches to knowledge, but it's never too late to work out a reasonable epistemology.

I always have YouTube videos going on the side at work (debates, lectures, and music. I try to avoid things that require me to watch). Occasionally, if I'm waiting for code to compile or something I'll get into the comments. That's typically when I get into discussions like the one above.

In other news, my son is a year old, and my wife and I did this cool Korean ceremony where we put a bunch of stuff in front of him, and each thing symbolized a professional field, and then we waited to see which one he would pick. From an array of about 10 items, he picked the calligraphy brush and the coins -- the same two items his mom picked when she was his age (Chowon had to call her mom to ask). The prediction associated with those is that he will be a scholar and a businessman. It's all good fun.

Isaac has been more interactive lately. I wish I had more energy to devote to fostering that interaction, but I feel like I'm on defense whenever I get home these days. I guess it's just the stress of having to move in and out of our house so many times in such a short period. Maybe that's just an excuse, and I should make the energy! But I just don't have it. Idk. I get home and I just want to lay on the floor and fall asleep.

"Jokes on you"

Man, Audiotree keeps putting out good ones. I'm listening to this one right now.

Madison McFerrin was also good.

We're about to move back into our house... Will we get a break? Is there any rest in our future?

I have a hard time picturing it anymore. What does rest look like in the context of my life?

I'm not all that motivated to indulge in hobbies that I really want to pursue.

My conversation with Logan seems to have died out. That's ok.

I'm presently trying my argument on another individual. I think the methodology for transcendental argumentation itself is a bit of a brain-twister. I'm finding that it takes me a while to get past the initial objection, "you just took that aspect of our experience for granted!" -- to which the response is, naturally, "yeah, that's the point. I'm not arguing to prove that part of our experience. Are you saying that you think that part of our experience isn't valid?" Whereas, in the case of this particular argument, the "part of our experience" in question is the validity of our perceptions, the objection itself is baffling. Who rejects any information on the grounds that the essential validity of our perceptions are not falsifiable, ever? Apparently that's the criteria for accepting the existence of God.

Oh well.

I've finished highlighting commands in the 5teuch. Now I'm debating with myself: do I go ahead and catalog what I have so far, do I continue reading the OT to find more qualifications on the commands I've marked so far, or do I dive right into the NT and look for fulfillment?

I think I just answered my own question. It's gonna be hard to reference back to these if I haven't cataloged them yet. That's the next step. I gotta find a good notebook for this.

I guess it's time to be busy again...

"Space to cry or write a poem and drink some wine..."