Have coffee next to computer in dining room for editing marathon. Kids are playing and winding down for bedtime in living room. There has been a lot more laughing and playing together lately. It starts with the kids laughing and playing together, and then magically we can all join. I have hopes of our family becoming a family that enjoys one another. Not that we loathe one another now, but up until now it has been about bearing with one another when we were together as a group.
The biggest changes are that Stefan is more smiley and engaging and Kyrstin is more verbal. So she is relating to me in new ways that are pleasurable and Stefan is wanting to have fun with us. I have a lot to be happy for but wish he could walk. Then I think it will be even more fun. They'll be able to run outside together, and he'll be better able to get away from her when he's being pestered.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Interrupted
Well, of course the party couldn't last for long.
I am drinking Diet Dr. Thunder this morning to get a caffeine buzz.
I need to list a good thing here. We are trying to save money but had some expenses come up. There was a promotion at our local warehouse club that allowed us to get $40 of free stuff. Now I need to figure out how to turn that free stuff into meals and make it last awhile. Also need to get ingredients to make my own laundry and dish detergents. Should be fun.
Not made much progress lately on the dissertation. Keep getting to the end of the day with not enough day left.
Daughter up, gotta close.
I am drinking Diet Dr. Thunder this morning to get a caffeine buzz.
I need to list a good thing here. We are trying to save money but had some expenses come up. There was a promotion at our local warehouse club that allowed us to get $40 of free stuff. Now I need to figure out how to turn that free stuff into meals and make it last awhile. Also need to get ingredients to make my own laundry and dish detergents. Should be fun.
Not made much progress lately on the dissertation. Keep getting to the end of the day with not enough day left.
Daughter up, gotta close.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Ritual
For the past week or so, my kids have slept at the same time during the night and day. This allows for a routine. This, in turns, means I can account for my time, plan, and arrive at the end of the day not terribly exhausted. Right now, so help me, I even have a plate of oatmeal cookies and a steaming cup of decaf sitting next to my laptop. I don't want to gloat.
Ritual. Ritual is habit. Is habit ritual? No; habits are often forced whereas ritual is chosen. It is about control. Who is in control - the ritual or the ritualer? The ritualer would like to be. Ritual can be an indulgence, like these cookies. It can be symbolic, like the exchange of rings.
Is a routine a ritual? I think only when life is forced into subjection to it. When the routine is prioritized over something less important than the routine itself, it is a ritual; it is for its own sake. I must always ask myself, why must I do it this way?
In my own case, I know that I must have the joint nap time, and the sleeping through the night, if I'm going to have surplus energy after taking care of the kids all day. If one or both is awake all day, then my only time to complete tasks without them is when they go to bed, and after that, I go to bed. When they nap, or have their own quiet time, I can do house work, and then when they go to bed, I can study.
So, now, life flourishes because we have a routine. It is for our sake, our good, as a family. I admit there is a part of me that likes the routine for its own sake, too. I like feeling in control. However, with that admission, I feel like I have paid my dues the past 15 months or so of having no control and no routine, so I'm going to enjoy this coffee moment.
Ritual. Ritual is habit. Is habit ritual? No; habits are often forced whereas ritual is chosen. It is about control. Who is in control - the ritual or the ritualer? The ritualer would like to be. Ritual can be an indulgence, like these cookies. It can be symbolic, like the exchange of rings.
Is a routine a ritual? I think only when life is forced into subjection to it. When the routine is prioritized over something less important than the routine itself, it is a ritual; it is for its own sake. I must always ask myself, why must I do it this way?
In my own case, I know that I must have the joint nap time, and the sleeping through the night, if I'm going to have surplus energy after taking care of the kids all day. If one or both is awake all day, then my only time to complete tasks without them is when they go to bed, and after that, I go to bed. When they nap, or have their own quiet time, I can do house work, and then when they go to bed, I can study.
So, now, life flourishes because we have a routine. It is for our sake, our good, as a family. I admit there is a part of me that likes the routine for its own sake, too. I like feeling in control. However, with that admission, I feel like I have paid my dues the past 15 months or so of having no control and no routine, so I'm going to enjoy this coffee moment.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Page 1
What if women’s writing in the nineteenth century didn’t have to be about “killing the angel,” but about “finding the angles”? What if Harriet Beecher Stowe, X, and X, each in their own way, from their own subject positions, found that the most effective means of persuasion was to accept a set of limitations? Elizabeth Howells has argued that Hannah More, Eliza Cook, and Isabelle Bird prefaced their publications in ways that “gesture to appropriate feminine codes and to powerful rhetorical precedents in order to justify their projects” (137). These disclaimers, while limiting the persona of the author, seem, contradictorily, to establish an ethos of reliability and trustworthiness. Like Anne Hutchinson, the early American poet, each of these female authors acknowledges her limited resources and talent before presenting their products. The question is, to what extent was this modesty artificial, and to what extent was it useful?
“Artificial” has a range of connotations. On the negative end, it implies that something is not natural; false. On the other end, the origins of the word relate to something skillfully made. “Artifice” stems from this meaning but implies the use of skill for the purposes of deceit. The balance between deceit and cunning lies in the rhetor’s correct and ethical gauging of audience perception. If the rhetors aims are clearly stated, and he or she is really who he or she claims to be, then there is no fraud. If, on the other hand, the rhetor is claiming to comply with a custom or conform to a norm, and does not, there is fraud. From the outset, then, looking at the rhetorical and authorial claims of conservative 19th century women is a pursuit of an ethical question: were these women honest with themselves and their audiences?
For the most part, I believe they were. It was left to the 20th and 21st centuries to invent claims for women and then impose them on 19th century rhetors. The original question provoking this project was, if conservative Christian women knew the Pauline injunction against women preaching, why did they do it? The answer is simple: most of the time, they did not. Though modern scholars and thinkers like to attach the idea of “preaching” to the works of 19th century women, this is only a figure of speech, and it has gotten out of hand. A conservative 19th-century congregation would not feature a sermon by a woman. They might sing a hymn sung by a woman.
“Artificial” has a range of connotations. On the negative end, it implies that something is not natural; false. On the other end, the origins of the word relate to something skillfully made. “Artifice” stems from this meaning but implies the use of skill for the purposes of deceit. The balance between deceit and cunning lies in the rhetor’s correct and ethical gauging of audience perception. If the rhetors aims are clearly stated, and he or she is really who he or she claims to be, then there is no fraud. If, on the other hand, the rhetor is claiming to comply with a custom or conform to a norm, and does not, there is fraud. From the outset, then, looking at the rhetorical and authorial claims of conservative 19th century women is a pursuit of an ethical question: were these women honest with themselves and their audiences?
For the most part, I believe they were. It was left to the 20th and 21st centuries to invent claims for women and then impose them on 19th century rhetors. The original question provoking this project was, if conservative Christian women knew the Pauline injunction against women preaching, why did they do it? The answer is simple: most of the time, they did not. Though modern scholars and thinkers like to attach the idea of “preaching” to the works of 19th century women, this is only a figure of speech, and it has gotten out of hand. A conservative 19th-century congregation would not feature a sermon by a woman. They might sing a hymn sung by a woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)