When I try to explain something to someone, I usually start at a point that the person I'm talking to can relate to, and then work back in logical steps to the point I'm trying to make. It's a bit like going for a walk. This particular walk is rather unpleasant because I'm discussing two unpleasant topics: birth control and bulimia.
Many will immediately think "Bulimia is unpleasant, but what's the big deal with birth control? That's just taking a pill or using a condom." The unpleasantness is found at the destination as I attempt to walk you from "bulimia is unpleasant" to an understanding that "birth control is just like bulimia".
Bulimia is characterized by binge eating, followed by a purging. The purging can be accomplished by vomiting, fasting and the use of chemicals to pass the food quickly, among other techniques. The idea is that somebody takes in a lot of food in a desperate grab for comfort, only to need to get that food out of their body because they don't want the calories.
Some of you may have already made the logical leap to birth control. Sex is the binge, while birth control is the purge. People comfort themselves with acts of sex, while believing that any pregnancy is too much pregnancy. The use of a condom in sex is a perfect analogue to vomiting. I told you this would be unpleasant. The seed of creation enters the woman's body during sex, only to be taken out again because the consequences of the action are unacceptable. This is the same as life's sustenance entering someone's body during eating, only to be taken out again because the consequences of the action are unacceptable.
Bulimia is the result of taking the ordered action of eating, using it in a disordered way, and then attempting to deal with the situation by employing another disordered act. Recreational sex is the result of taking the ordered action of sex, using it in a disordered way, and then attempting to deal with the situation by employing another disordered act.
The ordered version of eating is to consume food that sustains a healthy body and mind. The ordered version of sex is to engage in sex to demonstrate committed love for one's spouse. That means sex that remains open to the creation of new life. Birth control is a statement that the two people want to swallow their food for the flavor, but not absorb the calories that are part and parcel of the act of eating. They want to feel the bliss of sexuality, but not accept the creation that is part and parcel of the act of sex.
Bulimia and similar conditions are rightly termed disorders, yet our society views all forms of birth control (including abortion) as relatively normal. Where did we lose our notion of doing things that were natural, complete and sincere? If you don't need sustenance, don't eat. If you don't want to create a new life, don't have sex.
Eating is ordered. Eating that rejects digestion is a disordered use of eating. Sex is ordered. Sex that rejects life is a disordered use of sex. The food bulimic believes that they are somehow worthless, which drives them to seek comfort in the consumption of food that they then reject. The life bulimic believes that the life that they might create is somehow worthless, which drives them to reject the possibility of creating that new life. Each is walking down an ordered path for the wrong reasons, resulting in a desire to reject the very thing that they sought.
Food bulimia and life bulimia. They are the same. Each is a disorder. I can understand people suffering from each and I hope for their successful treatment, but I cannot understand claims that they are not both disorders. Recognize your illness and you're halfway to your cure.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Monday, November 06, 2006
Blogging
There was a time when we had only three television channels, and city newspapers were the primary means of finding out what was going on in our communities. Walter Cronkite and Johnny Carson became news and entertainment icons the like of which we will not see again. That's because they were the focus of the few companies that held the reins of American media. In the same way, there were iconic journalists in print, and their readers knew them well, whether they agreed with them or not. These were the mountains of media, whose snow-capped peaks were truly the pinnacles of journalism, backed by money, influence and power.
Enter the world wide web. Slowly but surely, people began to realize that the web is a publishing medium, just as paper or broadcasting is. Not only was it a medium, but it was an accessible medium. Almost anyone could publish to it. There were the usual challenges associated with coming up with the content to publish, but the actual task of getting the content out to the readers was effortless. That's because the readers came to the creators instead of the other way around.
In settings where publishing costs are high, the published content must be able to pay those costs. With costs so low on the internet, the published content can be focused on topical niches or fanciful distractions and yet remain financially tenable. This is why it seems that every topic is discussed on the web, no matter how obscure. We are an affluent society, and we publish because we can.
This brings us to blogging, which is a rather difficult concept to nail down. A blog is perhaps best described as a train of thought in print and images. "Opinion Dump" is on the fringe of that description, as it is actually a series of articles in the style of an opinion/editorial column. John A, who suggested that I do this article, has a blog of his own that is clearly in the mainstream of blogging, covering topics that occur to him either in brief or at length. Other blogs read more like a personal diary, outlining the events of the author's life.
No matter the style or the content, blogs have the trait of being part of a rising din of published content that is coming from the masses. Instead of the forces of capitalism and politics controlling what is considered the cream that rises to the top of the publishing world, the web uses the brain-dead-simple shotgun technique; everyone writes, and the readership chooses its preferences. It's an extremely egalitarian system. Very democratic.
Ah, democracy. Note that in America, we use representative democracy. We elect specialists, known as politicians, to spend all their time trying to figure out how to deal with the day to day operation of our nation, our states and our cities. We do that in an effort to ensure that we have the highest quality specialists administering the process. Yes, you laugh. But that's really the idea behind it.
The same could be said of the publishing world as it was before the web. Only the highest quality authors were permitted to speak using the precious commodities of newspaper page space or broadcast time. Again, so goes the theory. If you're a believer in pure democracy, you'll love the web because it lets everyone publish whatever they want to say, and what people like, they'll read.
It's an impressive experiment, because we're going to find out some things about human nature as a result of blogging. With anyone who can type, take a picture or shoot video becoming a journalist, we're going to find out if letting people read the opinions that they want to read is a good thing or not. Paid journalists are usually very diligent in validating the information that they publish because their paycheck hangs in the balance and they are accountable to a company for their content. Bloggers on the other hand can say pretty much whatever they want. If people like what they say, then they have a readership base. Accountability becomes purely an issue of retaining a group that originally agreed with the author. Remember: blogs tend to have niche followings.
On the other hand, there are some remarkably talented people out there. They have insights as well as literary and graphical skills that boggle the imagination. The web permits them to directly show the world what they've got, and hopefully the cream rises to the top and gets recognized. For example, there was a pilot for a television program that was panned by a media executive, but which was proven to be very popular among viewers who saw it on the web. The media executive reconsidered because the egalitarian web sidestepped him, permitting the customers to decide instead of him speculating what the customers wanted.
One thing about blogs that I really like is that more people are writing. In order to write well, an author must understand what they are writing about. Just try explaining something to a child. I you don't know what you're talking about, you're going to get into trouble. So when I think about people writing blogs, I'm inspired to believe that people are spending a little more time mulling over the topics that they are blogging on, even if they're only blogging about what happened during their day. They may see something in their writings that will inspire them to make a change for the better.
Another really good thing about blogging is that people around the world are blogging. A diary-style blog from Slovakia could well provide remarkable insights to people around the world. Reading a blog a day from a random person in a foreign country might show us that our view of the world is terribly myopic. Or that there are many people in the world who need our help.
One thing about blogs that makes me nervous is the fact that people with unhealthy attitudes can write at length about those attitudes and have their beliefs reinforced by others on the web who share those attitudes. People don't like to break up social circles, and once a number of people who agree with your views are drawn to you, you are less likely to risk damage to that circle if you should ever be inspired to make a change for the better.
Another dangerous aspect of blogs is journalistic integrity. Bloggers say whatever they care to. Truth is not necessarily the focus of a blog. In fact, I'd say that the most important thing about a blog to the author is the insistence that what they write is worth writing. A diary blog validates the author's actions. An opinion blog validates the author's opinions. And so on. Even worse, consider the use of blogs as intentional propaganda. That diary blog in Slovakia could be written by an oppressive government representative who paints a thoroughly innacurate view of the country. When can we trust a blog?
If you've never considered writing a blog, I encourage you to start one. Maybe all you need is a document on your computer that you update from time to time. Maybe your blog will be the next thing to go viral on the web. Either way, take some time to write down your thoughts. You'll find that you have to get them organized first, and then you have to figure out how to explain them all. It's a great exercise for the mind, and you may well learn something significant about yourself. In any case, your readers certainly will.
Enter the world wide web. Slowly but surely, people began to realize that the web is a publishing medium, just as paper or broadcasting is. Not only was it a medium, but it was an accessible medium. Almost anyone could publish to it. There were the usual challenges associated with coming up with the content to publish, but the actual task of getting the content out to the readers was effortless. That's because the readers came to the creators instead of the other way around.
In settings where publishing costs are high, the published content must be able to pay those costs. With costs so low on the internet, the published content can be focused on topical niches or fanciful distractions and yet remain financially tenable. This is why it seems that every topic is discussed on the web, no matter how obscure. We are an affluent society, and we publish because we can.
This brings us to blogging, which is a rather difficult concept to nail down. A blog is perhaps best described as a train of thought in print and images. "Opinion Dump" is on the fringe of that description, as it is actually a series of articles in the style of an opinion/editorial column. John A, who suggested that I do this article, has a blog of his own that is clearly in the mainstream of blogging, covering topics that occur to him either in brief or at length. Other blogs read more like a personal diary, outlining the events of the author's life.
No matter the style or the content, blogs have the trait of being part of a rising din of published content that is coming from the masses. Instead of the forces of capitalism and politics controlling what is considered the cream that rises to the top of the publishing world, the web uses the brain-dead-simple shotgun technique; everyone writes, and the readership chooses its preferences. It's an extremely egalitarian system. Very democratic.
Ah, democracy. Note that in America, we use representative democracy. We elect specialists, known as politicians, to spend all their time trying to figure out how to deal with the day to day operation of our nation, our states and our cities. We do that in an effort to ensure that we have the highest quality specialists administering the process. Yes, you laugh. But that's really the idea behind it.
The same could be said of the publishing world as it was before the web. Only the highest quality authors were permitted to speak using the precious commodities of newspaper page space or broadcast time. Again, so goes the theory. If you're a believer in pure democracy, you'll love the web because it lets everyone publish whatever they want to say, and what people like, they'll read.
It's an impressive experiment, because we're going to find out some things about human nature as a result of blogging. With anyone who can type, take a picture or shoot video becoming a journalist, we're going to find out if letting people read the opinions that they want to read is a good thing or not. Paid journalists are usually very diligent in validating the information that they publish because their paycheck hangs in the balance and they are accountable to a company for their content. Bloggers on the other hand can say pretty much whatever they want. If people like what they say, then they have a readership base. Accountability becomes purely an issue of retaining a group that originally agreed with the author. Remember: blogs tend to have niche followings.
On the other hand, there are some remarkably talented people out there. They have insights as well as literary and graphical skills that boggle the imagination. The web permits them to directly show the world what they've got, and hopefully the cream rises to the top and gets recognized. For example, there was a pilot for a television program that was panned by a media executive, but which was proven to be very popular among viewers who saw it on the web. The media executive reconsidered because the egalitarian web sidestepped him, permitting the customers to decide instead of him speculating what the customers wanted.
One thing about blogs that I really like is that more people are writing. In order to write well, an author must understand what they are writing about. Just try explaining something to a child. I you don't know what you're talking about, you're going to get into trouble. So when I think about people writing blogs, I'm inspired to believe that people are spending a little more time mulling over the topics that they are blogging on, even if they're only blogging about what happened during their day. They may see something in their writings that will inspire them to make a change for the better.
Another really good thing about blogging is that people around the world are blogging. A diary-style blog from Slovakia could well provide remarkable insights to people around the world. Reading a blog a day from a random person in a foreign country might show us that our view of the world is terribly myopic. Or that there are many people in the world who need our help.
One thing about blogs that makes me nervous is the fact that people with unhealthy attitudes can write at length about those attitudes and have their beliefs reinforced by others on the web who share those attitudes. People don't like to break up social circles, and once a number of people who agree with your views are drawn to you, you are less likely to risk damage to that circle if you should ever be inspired to make a change for the better.
Another dangerous aspect of blogs is journalistic integrity. Bloggers say whatever they care to. Truth is not necessarily the focus of a blog. In fact, I'd say that the most important thing about a blog to the author is the insistence that what they write is worth writing. A diary blog validates the author's actions. An opinion blog validates the author's opinions. And so on. Even worse, consider the use of blogs as intentional propaganda. That diary blog in Slovakia could be written by an oppressive government representative who paints a thoroughly innacurate view of the country. When can we trust a blog?
If you've never considered writing a blog, I encourage you to start one. Maybe all you need is a document on your computer that you update from time to time. Maybe your blog will be the next thing to go viral on the web. Either way, take some time to write down your thoughts. You'll find that you have to get them organized first, and then you have to figure out how to explain them all. It's a great exercise for the mind, and you may well learn something significant about yourself. In any case, your readers certainly will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)