I wasn’t looking for advice on how to write a love letter, but advice found me. I was actually looking for advice on how to correctly sign a formal letter – but this had nothing to do with the not-at-all bogus (I wonder if ‘bogus’ is Mock-Latin) letter from Rufus Lambus (see Lambs Fight Back). And I discovered a helpful, but slightly creepy, website (letterwritingguide.com). It gives guidelines on letter writing for almost any occasion, accompanied by a sample letter. Included in the list of possible letters a person might need to write in their lifetime was ‘a love letter’. Here is the sample letter:
To My Beloved Caitlyn,
You are always on my mind, I can't stop thinking about you. The first thoughts when I wake, and the last thoughts before I go to sleep are of you. I am such a lucky guy to have found such a wonderful woman. I miss you so much, it has been too long since the last time I saw you.
Your smile is so beautiful and magical. Every time that I think of your smile it lights me up inside. Even when I am having a really bad day, seeing you smile makes me want to smile too and it makes me forget about the previous events of the day.
Caitlyn, you must be the most caring person on earth. You seem to have an unlimited amount of patience and kindness. Every time I make a mistake you are right there to support me. The time that you drove 300 miles just to take care of my sick mother when I was away is just one example of your big heart.
I have had such a great time with you no matter what we are doing. As long as you are around, even doing the most mundane activity is fun. I hope that we'll see each other everyday when I come back, I want to spend as much time with you as possible. I miss you so much.
Love always,
Signature
If I were Caitlyn I’d get the hell out of town before this guy gets back:
“I want to spend as much time with you as possible” – he’s very clingy
“Every time I make a mistake you are right there to support me” – he can’t look after himself and, hence, is probably very needy
“The time that you drove 300 miles just to take care of my sick mother” – he neglects his responsibilities and expects you to take care of them
“Love always, Signature” – he can’t remember his own name
In my time, on this bumpy planet, I have both written and received the occasional ‘love’ letter - I put love into brackets because love, especially romantic love, is complicated, and not always ‘loving’. A love letter is either joyful or painful – I can’t imagine it being neutral. Some years ago an ex-boyfriend kept sending me ‘love’ letters after we’d broken up; it became distressing. Eventually the letters stopped, but I held on to them for a number of years - for various reasons - until I ceremoniously burned them, which was very cathartic.
I’ve been trying to find more appropriate, and poetic, words for a love letter than those used in the above sample letter. I don’t know many poems, so I’ve turned to songs (from my not-very-extensive music collection). I often listen to “Touch” by Sarah McLachlan (her first album). Her music is melodic and ethereal, with beautiful, sometimes dark, lyrics – words which could be added to any self-respecting love letter. One of my favourite songs is “Strange World”, here are some of the lyrics:
We walk without a sound across a barren landscape
Your eyes are twisted down to a dew entrailed ground
We watch the stars as they slowly fade away and in the clearing sky I see
The cold stone face of morning setting in on me
It's a strange world
It's a very strange world that leaves me
Holding on to nothing when there's nothing left to lose
Your touch is cold and damp, the devil's in your eyes
I wonder why I always let you lead me on this way
'Cause you see only what you want to see
You feel only as you want to
And I am on the outside of your strange world…
Monday 26 January 2009
Thursday 22 January 2009
A Jar by the Door
“…wearing the face that she keeps in a jar by the door” – Eleanor Rigby by The Beatles.
When I go to work in the laboratory, I have a face that I wear (which I actually keep in a shoebox by the door). I bought the face on ebay, a few years ago. It was hard to find but worth the effort. I feel it gives me the appearance of being hard-working, approachable (but only if it’s really urgent) and, most of all, someone who really knows their Science. Here is a picture of the face:
When I go to work in the laboratory, I have a face that I wear (which I actually keep in a shoebox by the door). I bought the face on ebay, a few years ago. It was hard to find but worth the effort. I feel it gives me the appearance of being hard-working, approachable (but only if it’s really urgent) and, most of all, someone who really knows their Science. Here is a picture of the face:
Saturday 17 January 2009
Lambs Fight Back
Last week, this blog made a pejorative and unsubstantiated claim that the lamb in William Blake’s poem “Tyger, Tyger” was ‘wimpy-assed’ (see Burning Bright). Since then, there has been a barrage of angry mail from lambs across the globe. I’ve reprinted, with permission, one of the letters; one that I think best highlights the concerns of lambs:
This blog offers a humble and unreserved apology to anyone who was offended by its recent remarks, and for its ignorance of the plight of lambs and the disrespect shorn…sorry, shown. And, by way of making amends, offers this:
Dear Effulgent13,
It is with both the disappointment and anger of lambs that this letter is written. We lambs have enjoyed reading your blog. We especially enjoyed your comments regarding James Joyce and William Burroughs (and nobody, not even lambs – who are known for their literary culture - has ever been able to read “The Brothers Karamazov”). But we were horrified to discover a reference to William Blake, and your blog’s complicity in Blake’s misrepresentation of lambs.
Ever since William Blake first put pen to paper (or quill to parchment – which was probably made from lambskin!)* and blithely seconded the image of ‘lamb’ as a symbol/metaphor for goodness/innocence, we lambs have suffered. (We acknowledge that the biblical Lamb of God – Jesus Christ – was Blake’s original inspiration, but we feel he overstepped this religious imagery and made his poetry too much about actual lambs). This kind of “pedestal placing” puts too much pressure on animals to be, well, not animals. Lambs, like all of God’s creatures, are flawed. The ‘Christ-like’ semblance of lamb, in which readers of William Blake have been led to believe, is unrealistic. And compare this with Blake’s portrayal of the spirited tiger – the ‘bad-ass’, if you will - tigers are allowed to misbehave, to be ‘devilish’; it is even exalted. This is unfair!
But let it also be said that lambs are not weak. The image of lamb as ‘wimpy-assed’, as your blog so egregiously espoused, is false. We are tough when toughness is needed. Witness how we put up with Australian farmers cutting away our ‘wimpy-asses’ without any anaesthetic (see mulesing). It would be interesting to see the reaction of an un-anaesthetised tiger having his bottom cut away.
We hope this letter has gone some way to explain our grievances with William Blake. And we hope your blog is more thoughtful and considerate in future.
Yours sincerely and Baaa,
Rufus Aurelius Lambus
President; The Society of Lambs against Songs of Innocence and Experience
Motto: “Williamus Blakus Folus; Lambus Bastardus Meanum” **
(Translation: “William Blake is a Fool; Lambs are Mean Bastards”)
This blog offers a humble and unreserved apology to anyone who was offended by its recent remarks, and for its ignorance of the plight of lambs and the disrespect shorn…sorry, shown. And, by way of making amends, offers this:
* OK, it was probably calfskin, but lambs are united in solidarity with the sufferings of their calf-brothers and calf-sisters
** Scholars of Latin will recognize this as Mock-Latin
** Scholars of Latin will recognize this as Mock-Latin
Sunday 11 January 2009
Alchemy/Physics/Black Hole
Sometimes, when the moon is bright and the dense night weighs heavily upon my conscience…what?…, I enjoy thinking about matter; atoms and molecules: how they work and what they get up to. Which is probably why I studied Chemistry – although, there is something to be said for access to some really great solvents – and I love the smell of dichloromethane in the morning (and that sweet tingle it gives me). But I didn’t know much about the beginnings of Chemistry as a Science. So I’ve been reading about Alchemy and how it transitioned into Chemistry.
Eighteenth century alchemists, in an effort to understand matter, did a lot of burning of materials (mainly metals and minerals, with and without charcoal – burning the crap out of things has always been an effective experimental method; plus, fire pretty). They found that some materials gained mass, some lost mass; it was all very confusing and hard to explain. So they came up with the idea of ‘phylogiston’ – a substance (not quantified experimentally) which combines or uncombines with materials as is needed. One of the pioneers of modern Chemistry, Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794), disagreed with the alchemists. Here is what he had to say about phylogiston:
“Chemists have made phylogiston a vague principle, which is not strictly defined and which consequently fits all the explanations demanded of it. Sometimes it has weight, sometimes it has not; sometimes it is free fire, sometimes it is fire combined with an earth; sometimes it passes through the pores of vessels, sometimes they are impenetrable to it. It explains at once causticity and non-causticity, transparency and opacity, colour and the absence of colours. It is a veritable Proteus* that changes its form every instant!” **
I think Lavoisier was a little bit of a killjoy.
In 2008, scientists and engineers [actually construction workers, electricians etc…people who probably, at times, risked their health (and lives) during construction] finished building the Large Hadron Collider. They will now be able to smash really tiny particles together at really high velocities (doesn’t sound crazy at all). Physicists are looking for the Higgs-Boson particle (or ‘God’ particle). If it exists it will account for the mechanism by which other particles (eg electrons) acquire mass. (This is the best explanation I can give for something I barely understand).
My point in all this…is that it sounds a lot like phylogiston. Not that this is a bad thing; maybe the alchemists were onto something, but the idea got lost along the way, especially as they were unable to prove anything experimentally.
Of course none of this is going to matter if the particles in the collider reach Black Hole critical mass. The human race, all the nice animals, the bacteria, the plants, the insects (but not the cockroaches – they’ve got those nifty exoskeletons which convert into spaceships) will be compacted into an incredibly dense ball of matter and will suffer endless torment in the eternal darkness. Amen.
*Proteus: (in Greek mythology) a sea god able to take various forms at will/ any bacterium of the genus Proteus, usually found in the intestines – I don’t know which he meant, probably the former. I think it would be fun to be a Proteus, either kind.
**From “The Norton History of Chemistry” by William H Brock, pg.111 (yep, it’s him again – sadly, no ‘corpuscular’ in this quote).
Eighteenth century alchemists, in an effort to understand matter, did a lot of burning of materials (mainly metals and minerals, with and without charcoal – burning the crap out of things has always been an effective experimental method; plus, fire pretty). They found that some materials gained mass, some lost mass; it was all very confusing and hard to explain. So they came up with the idea of ‘phylogiston’ – a substance (not quantified experimentally) which combines or uncombines with materials as is needed. One of the pioneers of modern Chemistry, Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794), disagreed with the alchemists. Here is what he had to say about phylogiston:
“Chemists have made phylogiston a vague principle, which is not strictly defined and which consequently fits all the explanations demanded of it. Sometimes it has weight, sometimes it has not; sometimes it is free fire, sometimes it is fire combined with an earth; sometimes it passes through the pores of vessels, sometimes they are impenetrable to it. It explains at once causticity and non-causticity, transparency and opacity, colour and the absence of colours. It is a veritable Proteus* that changes its form every instant!” **
I think Lavoisier was a little bit of a killjoy.
In 2008, scientists and engineers [actually construction workers, electricians etc…people who probably, at times, risked their health (and lives) during construction] finished building the Large Hadron Collider. They will now be able to smash really tiny particles together at really high velocities (doesn’t sound crazy at all). Physicists are looking for the Higgs-Boson particle (or ‘God’ particle). If it exists it will account for the mechanism by which other particles (eg electrons) acquire mass. (This is the best explanation I can give for something I barely understand).
My point in all this…is that it sounds a lot like phylogiston. Not that this is a bad thing; maybe the alchemists were onto something, but the idea got lost along the way, especially as they were unable to prove anything experimentally.
Of course none of this is going to matter if the particles in the collider reach Black Hole critical mass. The human race, all the nice animals, the bacteria, the plants, the insects (but not the cockroaches – they’ve got those nifty exoskeletons which convert into spaceships) will be compacted into an incredibly dense ball of matter and will suffer endless torment in the eternal darkness. Amen.
*Proteus: (in Greek mythology) a sea god able to take various forms at will/ any bacterium of the genus Proteus, usually found in the intestines – I don’t know which he meant, probably the former. I think it would be fun to be a Proteus, either kind.
**From “The Norton History of Chemistry” by William H Brock, pg.111 (yep, it’s him again – sadly, no ‘corpuscular’ in this quote).
Thursday 8 January 2009
Burning Bright
Because my cat and I were looking for tiger photos a few months ago, I now have too many tiger photos saved in my pictures file. So I will shortly be deleting them. But before this happens, I'm uploading two of my favourite photos to this effulgenty blog; for a blog can never have too many tiger photos.
And no tiger photos would be complete without:
" Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry..."
(William Blake)
...and then some verses about the sinews of the heart (icky), a hammer and anvil, weeping stars throwing down their spears (what the...?), and some wimpy-assed lamb (Tyger's gonna eat you!).
And no tiger photos would be complete without:
" Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry..."
(William Blake)
...and then some verses about the sinews of the heart (icky), a hammer and anvil, weeping stars throwing down their spears (what the...?), and some wimpy-assed lamb (Tyger's gonna eat you!).
Sunday 4 January 2009
Catholic Land
The first blog entry for 2009, groovy. And I hope 2009 will be a groovy year. I’ve sensibly chosen a very safe, unfiery topic to herald in the New Year – Religion.
Looking back on some blog entries from last month I began to wonder if this blog might be open to accusations of religious intolerance, and specifically, Catholic intolerance. I wouldn’t want that to happen, not because I’m worried about being shutdown, but because I don’t think I’m intolerant of Religion. I am critical of Religion, and anything else in life, when I think it’s warranted. And clearly, I have some issues with Catholicism (into which I was baptised as a baby) – the doctrine of papal infallibility bothers me, and the level of power this confers – the encyclical “Humanae Vitae”, which outlaws contraception for Catholics, bothers me – the Pope’s recent comments comparing homosexuality to climate change bother me – I think the Vatican has its own intolerances.
So now I play with fire; but fire played with me first. It would be unrealistic for me to continue writing a blog without some reference to Religion. It’s a part of me, although I don’t have religious faith – Is that allowed? Probably not. Religion seems to have a lot of dos and don’ts. To be a member of a Religion you have to follow the rules. No bending. However, there are practising Catholics who ignore some of the doctrines of Catholicism. And there are clergy who are OK with this. I think this is a good thing. People with religious faith should be allowed into church, allowed to celebrate and share their beliefs with others, it should be a positive experience. I don’t think there should be restrictions.
Another thing that concerns me is exposing some of the more challenging tenants of Catholic theology to young children. I think it can be psychologically dangerous. For example, the concept of Hell and how easy it is to get there, is pretty frightening, even to adults.
I gave up being a Catholic (or any kind of Christian) when I was sixteen. I gave it up, blubbering, in front of a priest – a very kind and patient priest. He prayed for me, he asked God to give me guidance through my troubles. And I was guided through my troubles, away from Religion. So I wonder, is my lack of religious faith proof of God’s existence…freaky…ironic…but that’s God for you, with His wacky sense of humour…if He exists…
For me, there are too many aspects of Christianity in which I don’t have faith. Probably the biggest being my lack of belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God. But I agree with many of Christ’s teachings – don’t be selfish or greedy, help those in need, try to understand others by wearing their shoes and then walking in them. And, from my limited research, other Religions have similar teachings.
I’m not comfortable commenting too much on the theology of Religions I’ve never practised and haven’t really studied properly, so I’ve confined my diatribe to Catholicism.
Many, many, many people living on this rapidly spinning planet find solace in Religion and have a strong faith in God. I respect their beliefs, but don’t share their beliefs. Can we still be friends? I hope we can.
A religious person might ask me: “If you don’t have religious faith, what sustains you?” At the moment: The sun. The moon. Soil. Things that come from soil. Lots and lots of tea. Family. Friends. My continuing heartbeat.
Looking back on some blog entries from last month I began to wonder if this blog might be open to accusations of religious intolerance, and specifically, Catholic intolerance. I wouldn’t want that to happen, not because I’m worried about being shutdown, but because I don’t think I’m intolerant of Religion. I am critical of Religion, and anything else in life, when I think it’s warranted. And clearly, I have some issues with Catholicism (into which I was baptised as a baby) – the doctrine of papal infallibility bothers me, and the level of power this confers – the encyclical “Humanae Vitae”, which outlaws contraception for Catholics, bothers me – the Pope’s recent comments comparing homosexuality to climate change bother me – I think the Vatican has its own intolerances.
So now I play with fire; but fire played with me first. It would be unrealistic for me to continue writing a blog without some reference to Religion. It’s a part of me, although I don’t have religious faith – Is that allowed? Probably not. Religion seems to have a lot of dos and don’ts. To be a member of a Religion you have to follow the rules. No bending. However, there are practising Catholics who ignore some of the doctrines of Catholicism. And there are clergy who are OK with this. I think this is a good thing. People with religious faith should be allowed into church, allowed to celebrate and share their beliefs with others, it should be a positive experience. I don’t think there should be restrictions.
Another thing that concerns me is exposing some of the more challenging tenants of Catholic theology to young children. I think it can be psychologically dangerous. For example, the concept of Hell and how easy it is to get there, is pretty frightening, even to adults.
I gave up being a Catholic (or any kind of Christian) when I was sixteen. I gave it up, blubbering, in front of a priest – a very kind and patient priest. He prayed for me, he asked God to give me guidance through my troubles. And I was guided through my troubles, away from Religion. So I wonder, is my lack of religious faith proof of God’s existence…freaky…ironic…but that’s God for you, with His wacky sense of humour…if He exists…
For me, there are too many aspects of Christianity in which I don’t have faith. Probably the biggest being my lack of belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God. But I agree with many of Christ’s teachings – don’t be selfish or greedy, help those in need, try to understand others by wearing their shoes and then walking in them. And, from my limited research, other Religions have similar teachings.
I’m not comfortable commenting too much on the theology of Religions I’ve never practised and haven’t really studied properly, so I’ve confined my diatribe to Catholicism.
Many, many, many people living on this rapidly spinning planet find solace in Religion and have a strong faith in God. I respect their beliefs, but don’t share their beliefs. Can we still be friends? I hope we can.
A religious person might ask me: “If you don’t have religious faith, what sustains you?” At the moment: The sun. The moon. Soil. Things that come from soil. Lots and lots of tea. Family. Friends. My continuing heartbeat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)