|
|
|
May 23rd, 2007
02:31 pm - My body is like royalty to me, but it doesn't like what I'm feeding it
I miss the nutrition that fast food provided me. It sounds like a strange statement, but you don't realize how much you need some of the crap that's in it until you stop eating it.
I'm not one to actively try and "balance" my diet. I eat until I'm full (or until I'm being impolite) and then stop. I mean, hell, the stupid new food pyramid doesn't make any sense at all, and that was the last straw in me trying to eat right. Between the "intuitive" colours on that monstrosity and the 2002 report that bread causes cancer, I pretty much lost all faith in nutrition "experts".
For the most part, I've always known what my body needs to function. The problem is, for the past four weeks or so, I've changed my dietary choosings, rarely eating out and eating more regularly. My sunrise devotionals (which have me waking up just after 6 AM) have been key in me getting breakfast (something I never ate before, except very rarely), and actually having time to prepare my lunches (which is also a novelty). Dinners have almost all been "in" because I can get a solid meal for about $2 if I eat in, as opposed to the $7-10 dinners are if you eat out.
But now, with regular, longer-lasting (and, sometimes, larger) meals, I find myself actually hungrier on a more regular basis. My apetite is voracious, and my gods, if you thought I could put away food before, you haven't seen anything yet. Let me put it this way: an extra large pizza with breadsticks doesn't stand a chance against me, and when I was a Freshman here at OSU, I was content with just a large pizza for dinner.
And I'm actually slimmer than I was four weeks ago.
For some reason, my metabolism has hit the roof with the increase in food, I think, and I just don't know how to stop it: cutting back on food seems like a very, very bad idea (I'm already operating at the failure point some days), and increasing also seems ill-advised (given my metabolism rate, I might starve because my body processes food too fast at this rate). Wellspring should help, because my dietary needs are different when camping than in "normal" life.
( Anyway, here's a rundown of the changes in my diet in the past 4 weeks or so: )Flatly put, I don't like what this diet is doing to my body. I'm uncomfortable with the changes I feel, and I think it's time to go back to the horrific stuff people think I shouldn't eat.
However, I also know that often, a bit of discomfort and doing what you don't think you should is good for you.
In the end, it's interesting to see just how poorly my body sometimes operates on certain foods and under certain conditions, and to watch it rebound over time. I'm not at all sure that my body can handle a "healthy" lifestyle over time, unless this system shock is only temporary. I do, though, intend to continue to eat like this for a while longer: I'm not in any danger, just discomfort, and I'm entertained by the experimentation of the whole situation.
More to the point, though, is this: it's entirely possible that my body has entered "system shock" mode and said, "Hey, idiot! We're not used to this crap! We don't know what to do with a 'whole grain'! What's this green stuff? Is it moldy? Have we been picking through the trash or something? Vegetables? Are we on an 'end of the alphabet' diet here? Get us a cheeseburger!"
[apparently, my body speaks in the "royal we"]
This means that my body may, eventually, find itself quite happy with this new diet, so it's up to me to work it through for a bit more to see what happens.
Current Location: Southeast of Disorder
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/classic/smile.gif) amused
Current Music: "Tampico Trauma", -JB
|
January 24th, 2007
11:48 am - Magic and some new DVD's . . . plus some storytelling
 "Come, come to my house," reads one section in the Semitic language that is supposed to be the snake's mother speaking, trying to lure him out of the tomb. In another passage, the snake is addressed as if he is a lover with "Turn aside, O my beloved." Classic, this text is, in terms of magical inscriptions. It may be the oldest text in a Semitic language, and, of course, it's magical.
Of course, the researchers are wild about its age and its connection with pre-Cannanite linguistics, which is all well and good, but it's magic, Baby!
Modern magic isn't like its grandaddy. It's been reformatted in a lot of ways to reflect that moderns don't really feel like they can (or, perhaps, should) affect reality in amazing ways. The ancient world's magic involved such creative things as masquarading as Moses (the greatest of Jewish magicians), pretending to be archangels and commanding the legions of lower-order angels to do piddly tasks, and making women "burn until they come to me." In the above example, the magician masquarades as the snake's mother and then as his lover in order to cause the snakes to leave.
In all, ancient magicians sure talked a lot of shit.
Modern magicians don't really do this. We tend to focus on change on a really small scale (generally within ourselves) or a really amazingly huge scale (e.g. changing the world so that it's got more "positive energy" floating around in it). Our results are not measurable, nor are they often testable. We avoid using magic to find things, obtain love (all the ethical "love spells are bad" dogma is amazing), and hurl fireballs down the street.
We talk in very . . . uncertain terms about what our magic can do, or will do. If asked to measure our success, we often don't produce a lot of tangible evidence, or we dodge the question entirely by saying, "Magic is too important to be used for experimentation."
I sometimes wonder: is this because we have little faith in our magic, or because we are afraid of what might happen if it actually worked?
Or is modern magic just not as strong, useful, or (possibly) egotistical as ancient magic? Which then begs the question: is it then inferior or superior to ancient magic, and can we even make that comparison bear fruit?
( On a totally different subject: Bruce Campbell, Jennifer Garner, and Lewis Carrol. . . )
Current Location: Southeast of Disorder
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/classic/confused.gif) curious
Current Music: "Nautical Wheelers", -JB
|
June 29th, 2006
08:43 am - Esus, gettin' down with the Africans
Does anyone have access to the publication: L'Année épigraphique
I need the following source:
AE 1985, 00934
Province: Mauretania Caesariensis
Location: Cherchell / Caesarea
And I need it badly.
There appears to be an inscription to Esus in Mauretania Caesariensis.
That's Algeria, baby. We're talking about an inscription for a Gaulish deity in North Africa.
So please, those of you who go to college and/or work in academic circles: check your library's journal section.
This is vitally important. Thank you for your time. :)
Edit:I have it! More once I go through it.
But this is very, very promising.
Current Location: Southeast of Disorder
Current Mood: ecstatic
Current Music: "Distantly in Love", -JB
|
February 9th, 2006
12:34 pm - Esus=Jesus=Caesar=WTFOMGLOL!!!1111!
So, apparently Jesus was actually Julius Caesar, Esus is Jesus is Caesar, the Jesus myth has nothing to do with the Jews (or even the Middle East) and I'm the insane one.
(Yes, I am fully aware that this entry seems to be an amusing flip-flop from my previous entry. Maybe I meant it that way? I dunno. The implication that I think about anything is perhaps thinking too much on my thinking.)
Over the past three weeks or more, I've been engaged in a discussion (rather, a series of discussions) about how Esus is related to Jesus. It is, on the one hand, entertaining. And honestly, I'm willing to look at it objectively. But I admit that I think it's bunk right now. But I'm hoping that I'm at least looking at each piece carefully before holding up the big "REJECTED" sign.
The central argument comes from Francesco Carotta's new book, Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity: An Investigative Report. I've had some very light dealings back and forth with Carotta himself (who runs a forum on his website), though they haven't been very in depth. He did, though, personally moderate me and reject a posting for suggesting that the theory that Jesus was of European origin, not of Semitic origin, worried me and made me afraid that the theory was potentially anti-Semitic. I feel special.
The book is, at present, too expensive for me to purchase, but I understand that it's being used by at least one history professor as an example of "bad" history, which amuses me a lot. If you ever feel like getting me an expensive gag gift, though, that's the thing to get.
Anyway, the point of the whole thing is that I have taken the time to re-think and re-work some of the information I have on Esus and Tarvos Trigaranus. It's also given me the kick to put up a page responding to some of the arguments I've received (over and over again, I might add) about Jesus being Esus and possibly Caesar. And now I've got the start of a page on the Nautes Pillar up, and I'll have more on that page in the near future.
Yeah, just what I needed: a new project in the middle of my current heavy workload. But this is one that is very valid to me. And it's definitely time that I started looking again at those Esus pages on my website. They hadn't been updated in nearly two years when I looked at them last, and one of the discussions I had showed me that I didn't really agree with everything. So things are expanded, and on their way toward becoming more expanded. It feels good to be back to this line of discussion and thought again. I missed it.
Current Mood: amused
Current Music: "Up On the Housetop", -JB
|
October 10th, 2005
02:03 pm - The self is like a diamond as big as the Ritz
Reading Cosmic Trigger, I came down with something. It's one of those things about RAW's work: it's got infectious ideas. I may not be convinced that these ideas are good, but they certainly resonate.
Anyway, RAW partitions off his personality into several facets. He seems to define them by a captialized word: Shaman, Skeptic, Mystic, and Poet.
I never planned to pick this up. At some point, though, probably about two or four months ago, I started doing this. I talk about things, though, I've begun to slip into this (rather useful) method of describing what's going on.
The Magician, for instance, is the one who has no fear, who laughs. He's not as strong as he used to be, but he's my first line of defense when things go wrong. He tests the waters when he knows there are pirhanas in the river, dances with tentacles, and sings in the rain.
The Shaman rarely bothers to come out, but his interest is perked by certain things. He's never been a big part of me, really. Well, not since I realized that DJ Conway was full of more shit than anyone I'd ever read.
The Scholar cuts through the bullshit, and is probably half the reason that the Shaman went into hiding. The Scholar pointed out early on that Shamanism has no place in Celtic religion as I practice it, and so the Shaman decided he wasn't going to be very important either. These pieces can fight it out, too, and sometimes come to understandings.
The Historian is slightly different than the Scholar, and he gets hung up on little hour-long documentaries on the Falkland Islands war, recreating and reenacting things in an accurate manner, and any map that shows troop movements (regardless of battle or time period).
The Priest turned tail and hid recently. He's afraid of coming out. Of all the roles that are played within me, this one has had the hardest time with everything recently. Gods, I want him back.
There are other parts of me, more complicated and less complicated parts. But for now, this is a good start.
Current Mood: amused
Current Music: "Everybody's On the Run", -JB
|
December 5th, 2003
12:48 pm - Some of my favourite theories
I was inspired today. Here are some theories I cooked up in a fit of artistic craziness:
The Pizzagirl Theory:
In which a man (or woman, in our modern times) orders pizza on a specific night and at a specific time in order to have the hot pizzagirl deliver a pizza. A tip of not less than 50% is given each time in the hopes that one day she will write her name and phone number on the box.
The Pizzaboy Theory:
In which a young man who has watched too much porn decides to get a job with "prospects" only to find out that his job is really just minimum wage, hellish, and dangerous. And he never gets laid by a party of 7 girls in tiny nightgowns. Alternatively termed "The Copy Machine Repairman Theory".
The Hot Waitress Theory:
In which men patronizing a particular bar/restraunt/dive will leave a tip for "scenery" as well as good service.
The Hot Waiter Theory:
In which hot waiters get a lot more money than hot waitresses.
The Feminist Wait-Staff Theory:
In which either the Hot Waitress Theory or the Hot Waiter Theory are described as "wrong", because "scenery" is not a valid reason to tip more, even though "atmosphere" is still a good reason to pay extra for the meal. This theory describes a sexist thing that men do, despite the fact that the hot waiter will be better tipped by desperate women than the hot waitress will be tipped by desperate men.
The Hot Retail Girl Theory:
In which a man will always choose the checkout aisle with the hottie, even if he has to stand in a slightly larger line. Often, they even do this when out shopping with a significant other.
The Hot Coffee-Shop Girl Theory:
In which a man aged around 45 will hit on the girl behind the counter during morning rush hour, annoying everyone else in line. The girl will often be flirtatious in return, but will state the following in the employee break-room: "God, he's a creep!"
The Men Can Do Any Technical Job Theory:
In which men are expected to fix plumbing, electrical fixtures, temprature problems, computer problems, furnaces, A/C units, water main breaks, and lumberjacking issues merely because they have a penis (which is like having a certification in any of the above problems). Due to these expectations, a situation is created where men believe they can do all the above issues themselves as well. This theory leads to half of all ER visits in a given year.
The Girls Can't Do Technical Jobs Theory:
In which any person calling any remotely technical help line will ask to speak with "A man" or "Someone who knows more" simply because the voice on the other end sounded feminine. This theory also covers men who try to tell the female tech support agent how to fix the problem.
The Girls Can't Do Technical Jobs Correllary:
In which women will answer their door for a service call in their underwear and be immediately embarrassed when they see a woman with a tool box on the other side.
The Hot Pagan Of Eligible Gender Theory:
In which you meet a good-looking Pagan of your preferred gender persuasion, and find out (usually through a third party the next morning) that s/he is taken, of a different (and sometimes scarier) sexual persuasion than you, or isn't nearly so good-looking once you finally sobered up and saw him/her in the daylight.
The Tech Support Peanut Butter Conspiracy Theory:
In which you suddenly realize that new computers must come packaged with peanut butter sandwiches, that warranties require you to call tech support after fixing a peanut butter sandwich, and that no one ever drinks milk with thier peanut butter sandwiches.
The Relation Who Knows Everything About Computers Theory:
In which every man, woman, and child on this planet has a close relation who knows everything about computers, and obviously knows more than you.
The Cute Fluffy Bunny Theory:
In which you discover that cute Fluffy Bunnies are good for two things only: fucking and more fucking. Actually, this is more of a law.
Current Mood: artistic
Current Music: "Peanut Butter Conspiracy", -JB
|
November 5th, 2003
12:40 pm - Caution: free thought and expression of unpopular ideas.
Just a bit of warning: I was thinking today about certain issues. And when I'm thinking, you know I'm dangerous.
Anyway, we were talking about Eastern Europe in my Vampire class today. Apparently, some people couldn't think of 3 ways E. Europe was affected by World War 2. The TA was especially disappointed about the omission of on particular detail that only showed up on about 10 tests out of 200: the Holocaust.
I started off thinking about why it wasn't included. I know it was mentioned in the readings, but it got only two sentences, really. Then I wondered if it was mentioned in class, and I started thinking about why I didn't put it down:
I was writing answers based on the information provided in the class. If the Holocaust was only mentioned in passing in the class, should we have been expected to use that answer on the test, especially when there are other issues that were directly referenced in the class? I know I thought about it, but I didn't think that the answer was suitable due to the amount of importance placed on it in lecture and in the readings.
Of course, all those thoughts are safe. It was the next one that had me worried.
I started thinking about Holocaust deniers. You know: the people who say that there were no death camps, that there was no murder of 6,000,000 Jews, and that really the Jews *were* the problem but that our politically correct society can't admit it. Yeah, those jerks.
Anyway, I couldn't help but think that, to someone who really wanted to look at the events following World War 2 from every angle, he/she would *have* to look at WWII from the idea that the Holocaust never happened. After all, there's enough scholarly (or, shall we say, pseudo-scholarly) work out there on the "lies and myths of the Holocaust" to warrant investigation.
Whether the idea is right or wrong, it deserves a chance to prove its case.
In other words, an historian should look at the Holocaust through the glass of the Holocaust denier in just as unbiased a manner as he/she should look through the glass of a Roman general talking about the Marian reforms to the Legions. It should be afforded the same amount of respect.
This was terribly hard for me to think about. After all, some things are just wrong, right? If we take this tack, then we need to also consider the multitude of books out there by Christian Fundamentalists that discuss New Age religions as cults, and we need to take them seriously.
Now, how could this be useful? It sounds very much like the first step down a long dark road of intolerance and whining.
But it's more than that. The use of non-conventional sources and ideas serves to embolden and enliven our ideas, and to see our own biases and flaws. To look into such things is like looking into a funhouse mirror: what you see is a true reflection of events, but one that has been twisted for another's amusement. While it's frightening to start with, eventually we come to understand how the twists come about, and where the wacko ideas we see come from.
Every idea has a place. Even twisted, misguided and ignorant ones like those of the Holocaust deniers and racists in general. The trick is to use them to expose themselves, or (more importantly) to learn something from them, no matter how disgusting they appear.
Of course, I don't study WWII or modern racism, so my points may be moot. I'm certainly not going to be reading anti-Holocaust literature, because I think it's cracked seven ways from Sunday. But I can't help but think that it's useful in some way.
I'm really disgusted at myself for that last sentence.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/classic/shock.gif) distressed
Current Music: "Last Mango in Paris", -JB
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
chronarchy's journal