asunder

Hello my new friend. I delved into your earlier journal entries and found it will take me some time to respond to your entries. But, I believe I will rise to the challenge now that I have an "accidental masters degree" (see recent journal entry)

How was Patagonia? A friend and I are going to be climbing Aconcagua on the Polish Glacier route this december then I was thinking of heading to Patagonia with my girlfriend after the climb. What are you going to be doing in Argentina during their winter? Climbing?

There are a few really awsome caves in the midwest, but as far as I know they are all commercialized and guided... sucky. There is an interesting one UNDER the minneapolis campus that I've been in, but it's pretty small.

I've been climbing in the black hills... the needles and such, it does kick a lot of ass out there. You ever climb at Devil's lake, WI? It's pretty awsome there too. Laters

We'd be happy to re-direct our cold upper-level air. I'm assuming you mean that you can do without rain for the next millennium. However, if you want it re-directed for just a weekend, just say the word!

first - supercool that you're fully funded & tricked out w/a stipend. i know there are cases where folks have to weight "program i want vs. program i can afford" - it's nice to not be in that situation.
another good book about academia is "writing for social sciences" - not so much of a how to get thru grad school book, but the title is pretty self-explanatory. it's actually really short - but then, that's the point right? the guy who wrote it makes some nice arguments about moving beyond jargon & just ya know, trying to be *clear* & have a *point*
your quotation from delay is something else. i understand the power dynamics, to some degree, that push politicians to say silly things (b/c ya know, they have to get re-elected & are captured by the soundbyte & thus denied real arguments). and i know how problematic it is to have true deliberative democracy ... but it seems so necessary. otherwise, we just get backed into ideological corners & firm positions - it becomes hard to figure stuff out. our institutions now are doing ok - but i think a shakeup (tho improbable) could do them good.
oh, and you have a research project already to boot? that's sweet.

ah.. the joy of my world

i totally love chicago! it's just a fun place to be. i'm really looking forward to this summer - when my work demands are sooooo much less, so that i can really get out every weekend and explore & enjoy the city. any recommendations on places i should check out?

hey there -

portland is super cool. it's got a great mellow vibe, it really pretty (it's green everywhere & it helped that the weather was sunny & mild this past weekend). they also have BEER and tasty FISH. so ya know. ya can't go wrong.

and i'm always up for shooting the shit over hegel & marx. you just name the time & the place

glad you had a good time - i always love those little moments that give you hope about the world around you. i'm hardly a big protest fiend - but the few events i've been too, i've also had that rush. that feeling that the world is an ok place, and there are other sane people out there.

i dunno. is my comment longer?

( i love long comment. long, big, dripping ones...)

;

woot. these comments are so long i have to take notes on them so that i have some recollection of what you said & what i want to say. that's sweet.

anyway. just to try & respond to some of the good points you raise .... (some of these are more tangental than others, sorry for that!)

first, you suggest that the connection that a mother (or either parent maybe even?) feels towards a child is just a feeling. suggesting, i think, that the child is really an independent entity - an end of its own & no one really "owns" it. while i agree that no one owns it ... that argument *does* go against most of what we usually think in western philosophy. i mean, the family is traditionally a priviliged sphere of interconnection - where feelings of love (while 'irrational') are still considered viable & vital. further, i would be hesitant to dismiss 'emotion.' while i don't want to suggest that i'm gonna go all out & dismiss rationality/reason - i do think it is a bold move to privilege 'rational arguments' in all instances. i'm not comfortable w/relegating emotion to a 'lower' place and of less significance - i think it's a legitimate part of the human experience that needs to be considered in social/cultural/political life. but at this point - we're potentially at a crossroads, having more of an *ontological* discussion maybe than one about these specific issues you think?

more back to topic ..

i agree that chidren should not be used as playthings - either to entertain you, or to give your life meaning, or to cement together a relationship. that's all true. but of course, there's not much that we can really do about it. (as you said yourself - government interfernce is usually pretty questionable). so i just wanted to let you know that i'm on the same page w/you there.

but i'm still hesitant about the power of one partner to 'force' adoption. and your point that adoption is generally a good life for the child is well taken - and i think important (& correct). it drops out a whole second set of ethical concerns for us.

ultimately, you make a good point that men are already responsible for their children (however - it would be interesting to know in cases where men do not want the child just how responsibly they actually behave - i'm not aware of this, but it would a useful statistic in this discussion i think) & therefore should have some say in what happens to that child.

but, falling back on philosohical tradition, it is usally understood that children & the family are *unique* - and that traditional rules of society & reason just do not apply. w/in the framework you're working - sort of a kantian framework maybe? (as you focus on reason, people as ends, etc) - i think you're prolly right. but i'm hesitant about applying that to families & mothers. i think it degrades a unique relationship that exists b/c of the state of motherhood. again, it is not rational - but that does not make it *lesser*. it seems like the upshot of the arrangment you're expressing is ultimately worse for women:
an informed, adult couple engages in sexual behavior & an unintended pregnancy results. the man decides to not have the child. this has two possible results -
1. the woman's unique subjective experience of motherhood is devauled - the unique bond of pregnancy is rejected & she is forced to give up the child
2. the woman keeps the child but the man signs away responsibility for caring for the child - despite the fact that he engaged in this behavior knowing the potential outcome (so he is priviliged - he can walk away in a way that women cannot; male privilige is continued) & the woman is left burdened w/a baby & costs (women get the shaft again)

i know this is not the most well-thought out philosophical positin i've staked out here. but i think that families are not abstract entities that can be addressed solely through reason. families get messy & empirical - so the solutions we come up w/for these problems are correspondingly messy.

thoughts?

OK, I've successfully stolen the connection from the overpriced internet node.

the benefits package is basically all we've been playing with for awhile now, so....that part isn't complicated....particularly since we intend to try to get back together once we're in the same city.

and damn...plane struck by lightning. that's intense.

btw...great film list...you have a few on there i forgot to add to my list.