Mom & Pop Home School

I have been asked several times during my life whether I think in “words or pictures”, or “in black and white, or color”. I have always found these to be intriguing questions, because they imply that at least some other people out there think in either words or pictures, and if in pictures, some think in black and white, while others think in color. I have never been able to give a satisfactory answer to either of these questions because none of the options seem to describe how thought works for me. I wonder sometimes whether this is because I think differently than the folks who invented these questions, or whether the questions merely represent seriously flawed thinking on the subject of thought. All of which is more or less irrelevant to practical everyday life, since we cannot experience what goes on in other people’s heads to compare. However, the questions have given me opportunity to ponder the nature of thought, which can itself be an interesting exercise.

I have not come to any earth-shattering conclusions, of course, but in thinking about thinking, I would have to say that rather than thinking in words and/or pictures, I tend to think in clusters and connections. The clusters are formed of little bits of related data–words, pictures, sounds, tastes, textures, temperatures, scents, pressures, emotions and other things for which I do not have words. When I think of a thing, the amount of its cluster that comes to the forefront of thought depends on how focused I am on that thing. A passing thought of an “apple”, to take an example,  might bring up the way the word sounds, a generic visual representation, the crunch of biting into a good apple, and the way an apple smells. Focusing on apples would bring additional bits of the “cluster” relating to apples–varieties of apples, apple trees with their roots reaching down into the earth and conducting life into the fruit, things apples are used for and made into, quotes relating to apples (”an apple a day keeps the doctor away”), and lot of other tidbits relating to apples. The more I focus on any one part of the cluster, the deeper and richer the detail.  Describing a cluster like this in words is dicey, completely inadequate, and takes far, far too long. I’m not sure how to do it. It’s like a picture being worth a thousand words, only different and on a much denser scale. At any rate, each of these clusters also has multitudes of connections linking it to other clusters. The connections are each different, a different weight, thickness, intensity, texture….something. And each carries something that is a little like a tonal pitch. I dunno…I write it out and it looks kind of irrational…lol. Nonetheless, there it is. Clusters and connections. New information forms into new clusters or gets absorbed into existing ones. New information also triggers new connections, both between the new bits, and between new and old bits, coiling out and winding amongst the clusters, or snapping taut from here to there with a magnetic sort of twang. Not that space or distance is at all relevant. Huh…hard to describe. And sometimes bits of information that have been floating around in the back of my mind for years and years suddenly bump into each other and spark a new connection.

 All of which is to say, in the random sort of way I’m feeling today, and with very much more personal detail than anyone wants to know about me I’m sure, that I made a new  connection just the other day that has really gotten me noticing things in a new way, now and then. I am not sure yet how to put it into words, but I’m going to try because sometimes condensing things into words and sentences helps me sort out the clusters and clarify the connections.

I have been doing a bit of reading recently, in preparation for next year’s earth and space science course. The passage I was reading was about the formation, life cycle, and final destiny of stars. There’s a lot of interesting stuff there, I must say, but the thing that has me pondering life was a small bit in which the writer pointed out that a star can only exist when two tremendous opposing forces are operating in the proper balance.

A star forms in a nebula, which is an immense cloud of dust, debris, and gases (mostly molecular hydrogen) floating around out in space. Something (scientists are not yet certain what, but likely a shockwave from a supernova or the gravity of a passing galaxy or black hole) causes a part of the dust and gases to clump together. If the mass of the clump is sufficient, the gravitational force it generates causes the material to begin to collapse into itself, getting denser and denser (and rounder, incidentally). But as the density of the stuff increases, hydrogen atoms begin colliding at pressures that cause their nuclei to fuse together to form helium atoms, which results in the release of subatomic particles, and in the conversion of a minute amount of matter into a tremendous amount of energy. This happens over and over and over within the star, as lighter elements are converted into heavier ones over the life of the star.  The explosive expansive force generated by the nuclear fusion reactions within the star balance the force of gravity so that as gravity pulls the material in toward the center of the star, nuclear explosions simultaneously force the material outward. It is the opposition between these two immense forces that causes the star to be able to achieve a form of stability in which it will remain at a consistent size and level of energy output for hundreds of millions, if not billions of years. If the gravity is not sufficient to counter the nuclear fusion force, the mass flies apart in a huge explosion and turns into a cloud of cosmic dust and debris. If the amount of fuel for nuclear fusion is insufficient to counteract the pull of gravity, the material collapses into a cold, dark, inert body. A star can only be a star, a self-luminous celestial body that generates its own energy, when the two forces are operating within it in proper balance.

 Also of interest is the fact that life as we know it on earth–from minute bacteria to the great blue whale–is powered by the energy from our star, the sun. That’s a whole other complex and fascinating subject, but right now we’ll just leave it at that. Life is only possible when these two opposing forces are properly balanced, and when the power generated through that balance is effectively utilized.

It occurs to me also that both gravity and nuclear fusion exist independent of the star. They are present in the star because of the conditions in which the star was formed, but they did not come into being when the star was formed, rather they helped to shape the star. Further, it occurs to me that gravity and nuclear fusion both operate in a set, consistent way, according to previously established natural “laws”. An energy-generating, life-powering balance can only be found within the star because these two forces consistently operate according to these timeless, unchanging natural “laws”.

And this is the point at which something back in the mish-mashy conglomerate of clusters and connections within my mind rolled over and thrust out a new shoot that flipped around and stuck to something else waaaaay over on the other side somewhere in the “religion” super-cluster. It’s still in the process of forming connections and sub-connections and sending shoots out to other clusters, and I’m not sure what the end result will be once it all settles back down again, but I am finding a distracting number of connections associating the idea of balance between opposing forces in stellar celestial bodies, and a well-known (to LDS persons) passage in 1 Nephi in the Book of Mormon:

 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God. And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

“It must needs be that there is an opposition in all things.” Hmmm……

Well, so I’ve been posting Cricket’s and Sunshine’s insights about life over there in Facebook land, and I regret not copying them here too because when I put them here I can actually go back and chuckle over them years later, whereas with Facebook they just disappear into cyber limbo, most probably never to be seen again. So here they are (along with a few other fun memories), mined out of Facebook back to about a year ago when I joined up on Facebook.

Dec. 20, 2008
A few minutes ago I was slicing a tomato for Sunshine. She wanted it cut in circle slices. One of the slices had a membrane going down the middle with seed pockets on each side.She said, “Hey! That’s not a tomato! It’s a pig nose!” (She always speaks with exclamation marks.)

“A pig nose?” says I.

“Yeah!” she said. “You know, a snot!” (No, that’s not a typo.) And naturally she proceeded to demonstrate by holding the slice up in front of her face and snorting enthusiastically.

She’s so ladylike. 

Jan. 11, 2009
Mom is trying to convince her son that there is no way he is getting a pet pygmie tarsier. 

Jan. 28, 2009
It was my night off. I needed a break from everyone for a while, but wasn’t sure they could leave me alone if I just stayed at home and read a book or something–even though they promised they would just pretend I wasn’t even there until morning. I went and sat at Starbucks for a while with my laptop, but after a while decided I really would be more comfortable snuggled up in a corner at home. When I got home, Cricket came running over as soon as I walked in the door, calling, “Mom! Welcome home! Come see my…” I said, “Wait! I’m not here, remember?” He stopped in his tracks. “OH YEAH! Sorry. Hey Dad! When do you think Mom might be home?” 

Feb. 6, 2009
Mom has just tucked her miniature pinscher (aka daughter) into bed after she finally finished off her last “cow butt” (aka creatively gnawed Dorito chip).

Feb. 23, 2009
3:15 pm Mom is giggling at her daughter’s new propensity to loudly announce a countdown from ten before performing any action. “I’m going to my bedroom in ten…nine…” 
9:50 pm Mom is wondering what to do with half a shortcake when all the strawberries have gotten sucked down the black hole that’s been wandering around disguised as her son.

March 10, 2009
Cricket had an end of unit review of the American Revolution. It was fun watching him realize that he was born 222 years to the day after Paul Revere’s ride.

 April 4, 2009
Mom is being swarmed by her daughter. No I don’t know how one child constitutes a swarm either, but this one manages just fine.

April 13, 2009
Mom likes the smell of daffodils and is glad her daughter insisted we each wear one in our hair today. 

April 19, 2009
Mom is officially the mother of an actual, real, genuine, bona fide LDS deacon. Way cool! (And a little surreal.)

April 22, 2009
Sunshine: “Why do we have a question mark, but no answer mark? (more…)

Today I was wished a happy Festivus. It got me to thinking.

A while back, on a homeschool forum I frequent in order to network with other homeschool moms, I asked the questions “What does ’sacred’ mean to you?”, and “What is sacred to you?” It seemed as though I’d had a few conversations scattered over several months in which someone had asked me something about LDS customs and beliefs, and when I’d explained that we do such and such because we consider this or that sacred, they didn’t really seem to “get” what I meant by that. I began to wonder whether that term had a different meaning to other people, and thought I’d get some input. The responses were, to me, surprising. Even in a forum dominated by strongly religious Christian people most of the responses seemed to be, “I’m not sure,” and “I’ve never really thought about it.” Some posters did expand on that a little, more along the lines of, “I guess it means holy. I’ve never really thought about it, but I guess I consider the Bible holy.” A pagan poster responded that things that are sacred are things that you shouldn’t mess with. But that didn’t really seem like a definition to me. You don’t “mess with” them because they’re sacred, they’re not sacred because you don’t “mess with” them. At least in my view. But she at least had a list of things that she thought you shouldn’t mess with, including (if I remember correctly) family, the earth, other people’s beliefs, and a few other things like that. 

The responses I got, though, did give me some insight as to why saying something was “sacred” didn’t help in those discussions of my beliefs. It wasn’t so much that the word had a different meaning, as that the word just had no meaning. To me, the idea of sacredness, sanctity, holiness, is one that ‘feels’ universal. I should be able to say a thing is “sacred” and have the concept understood, just as if I said the thing was “blue” or “cold” or “fuzzy”. It does seem, though, as if in our current, modern society very little is considered sacred. Perhaps nothing is sacred anymore, since the very concept of sacredness is becoming foreign. In some circles the idea of sacredness is distasteful–everything should be “equal” and therefore nothing should be ”special”, let alone special to the degree of “sanctity”. However, looking out from my own cultural window–from a perspective in which much is sacred, and the sacredness, the holiness, the wonder and preciousness of that which is sacred gives such richness and depth and meaning to my life–looking out my cultural window modern society seems distastefully superficial and narcisistic. I cannot see how any amount of neon lights, chemically-induced euphoria, trendy bits of plastic and wires, and frenetic leaping from one shallow, melodramatic “relationship” to another can even begin to fill the void left when the very concept of sacredness is removed. It seems to me sometimes as though the public obsession with celebrities, fashion, even intellectualism, is a search for something sacred–something “special”. People need SOMETHING to fill that emptiness.

Still, in that atmosphere it almost seems appropriate, in a twisted sort of way, that a new “holiday” (not to be confused with holy day) should be born, not out of anything remotely related to the holy or divine, but out of a superficial, jaded sitcom. If we reject the concept of sacredness and replace it with a new form of worship at the altar of air-brushed anorexic models, self-absorbed actors and designers, flashy gadgetry, mindless entertainment, and witty one-liners, we deserve a “holiday” based on telling the most important people in our lives how miserably they’ve failed to meet our self-centered expectations for them, decorating with an aluminum pole, and wrestling the head of household to the ground. It’s a nonsensical “holiday” that represents well the nonsensical ideals of modern society.

Me though, I think I’ll stick with my old-fashioned holy day. I will revel in the sacredness, the holiness, the divine grace and tender mercy that surround me and I will cherish it, because it is so very precious to me.

I’ve been avoiding posting after that last post. Things did not go as we had hoped, and J. did not join our family after all. I am not going to go into reasons here. It has been an emotional ride for all of us. It was heartwrenching to have to say no, but we feel it was the best decision for her as well as for us, and we are glad to have been able to make the decision before J. knew we were considering adopting her–she only knew she was staying with us for a few days while her foster family was out of town. We are getting a little tired of the roller coaster, but not ready to get off yet. We’re still hoping for a “next time” that works out a little better. I think this will be all I write about it. So now you’ve been updated, world, and I can get back to posting random nonsense at will without feeling like I need to confront this topic when I come here.