Top 10 annoying things about being thinner…

Weight log: 205 lbs

10. Having to wear mittens and wool socks to bed to keep my aching digits warm enough to not wake me up.

.

9. Not being able to ‘take advantage’ of my wife’s life-stage related warmth to reduce our heating costs this winter.

8. Not getting any ‘body-size’ sympathy from female cops about my lack of seatbelt use.

7. Lost friendship with my former tailor from the tent and awning company.

6. Having enough loose floppy arm-pit skin to involuntarily (and often in the most inappropriate situations) produce those arm-pit farts that I could never pull off as a boy.

5. The way my now protruding bum bones make sitting on unpadded benches in church a greater challenge for the minister to have a good sermon.

4. Having to learn an appreciation for the number of beats per minute in electronic/dance/trance music. (my latest music purchase: The Biggest Loser Latin Dance Workout Mix)

3. Not being able to claim outrageous weight loss methods in response to the ever popular, “So how did you do it?” question.

2. No longer possessing the same threatening cache as potential member of any human blanket/Tuna fish/dog pile.

1. Did I mention the loose skin?

Overheard…

A relatively larger first year student who lives in residence at the university to her relatively thinner first year classmate (who seem to incessantly have a predisposition to high-fiving each other over the most meaningless trivialities), “university student breakfast” = one half of a bagel and a whole Roma tomato.

“In both philosophy and everyday life we imagine that there is a real or true self which lies deep within us. On the surface is  found the clothing which may represent us and may reveal a truth about ourselves, but it may also lie. It is as though if we peeled off the outer layers we would finally get to the real self within. But what was revealed by the absence of clothes was not the Emperor’s (of the infamous fairytale) inner self but his outward conceit. Actually, as Ibsen’s Peer Gynt observed, we are all onions. If you keep peeling off our layers you find – absolutely nothing left. there is not true inner self. We are not Emperors represented by clothes, because if we remove the clothes there isn’t an inner core. The clothes were not superficial, they actually were what made us what we think we are.” – Daniel Miller in STUFF

The point Miller is trying to make is that the illusion of an inner self might actually be illusory especially in the sense that it might somehow be distinct from its external representation. I believe another wise ONE said something like, “By their fruit you will recognize them”. This concept is not easily reconciled with the modern conception of the self where we talk about finding ourselves and seeing ourselves in a new light. But really when you think of it those ideas are actually quite odd since they clearly suggest that we somehow live outside of ourselves almost like two people. What Miller is saying about clothing – we can surely say about food especially if we follow Barthes ideas in the previous post.
So my classmate is not just trying to produce an identity the food itself is identifying her or rather it is constituting her – both physiologically and socially…
The interesting thing might be to see how indeed those food item speak. I have been known as a coffee expert – a moniker that although I treasure it somewhat I feel uncomfortable wearing – it is restrictive in many situations where people find it necessary to justify their apparently inferior coffee when serving it to me. I always say, “Listen, I seriously don’t mind drinking any coffee at all – as long as it is black and caffeinated.” Of course this is not actually true since there clearly are some coffees that I refuse to drink. But saying allows me to negotiate what might otherwise be regarded a peculiar arrogance. Or is it my way of reinforcing my social construction as connoisseur by granting a certain ‘grace’ to my hosts in drinking their beverage? And what might happen if after losing all this weight I can no longer lay claim to the that same status?

Weight log:227lb

Hey would anyone like...

to buy a T-Shirt with this logo on the front?

Dubious Honour of…

…being the inspiration for another line of "Jesus Junk". Apparently, the words I wrote here gave impetus to the people over at EMPTYTOMBGEAR to start this line of merchandize. Check it out. (I kinda like the skull cap shown here)

deviance

In my class on Deviance and Social Control we talked about how difficult it is to really nail down a good definition of deviance.

There are a few basic takes on this…

There's the absolutist approach – this defines deviance as something that is somehow intrinsically or inherently wrong. That is, there is something about the action itself that makes it wrong. This definition would, as you can imagine, be pretty rigid and inflexible. You might say that me wearing a speedo is always wrong but you'd be hard pressed to keep that perspective with regards to my personal/romantic dress code in my own home.

There's the Statistical deviation approach – which suggest that behaviours that are statistically rare are deviant. Almost no one holds to this view. There are many things that are statistically rare but are hardly deviant. The fact that I can imitate Nacho Libre's famous love song might be rare but it is hardly deviant.

There's the Harmfulness approach – which suggests that if a certain action is harmful in some way it must be deviant. This seems like a decent approach but we know that there are plenty of things that aren't really harmful that are still considered deviant. The fact that I can regurgitate the meal I just ate and show it to you may be deviant but it isn't especially harmful to me or you. I can pick my nose and it hurts no one unless I have just cut my nails and make my nose bleed…you get the point…

The normative approach suggests that culture sets the guidelines for what is right and wrong. The question is here who controls culture.

This approach is similar to the constructionist approach that says that deviance is a social construction whose purpose is to control society in some significant way. Deviance is defined in a struggle between the powerful and those who comply. This is kind of like when I was a youth pastor on a weekend retreat. When I entered the cabin for night what I said was the law. If someone wanted to fart my recourse was to give them the Human Blanket (deviant in itself from some points of view). If I wanted to fart – I did. I got to say what was what.

The reactive approach is almost opposite of the absolutist approach and prides itself on being the most objective and unbiased. This one basically contends that something is deviant only because and when it elicits a reaction especially a negative one. There is nothing intrinsically deviant in and of itself – just as a result of a negative response to some action or condition. This view would say that there is nothing wrong with me leaving my socks on the floor around the house – it is only my wife's strong and negative reaction that makes it such. Try explaining that to Char…

So then the question comes – how do you define deviance?

Funny thing is that Christianity has been preoccupied with sin for millennia. We have made it a huge part of our theological enterprise. Of course we all are most comfortable with the way we define deviance for ourselves but the Christian perspective suggests that not only can our own ideas not be reliable in determining what is right and wrong but there is something that transcends all these approaches and claims the authority to create standards of deviance. I remember debating at length as a boy whether certain things were wrong in certain situations and not in others or whether there was this absolute standard that made things right or wrong.

Some friends of mine have been talking...

about how pluralism is affecting our lives - especially as we try to live them out day to day. Here and here.
And I was listening to John Mayer and I am starting to wonder if I am, "lack of coherence or consistency with respect to one’s views about the world." Well not really so much. but check out these lyrics and then if you want to follow the link to watch a video performance of the song...
Is there anyone who
Ever remembers changing there mind from
The paint on a sign?
Is there anyone who really recalls
Ever breaking rank at all
For something someone yelled real loud one time
Everyone believes
In how they think it ought to be
Everyone believes
And they're not going easily
Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword
Like punching under water
You never can hit who you're trying for
Some need the exhibition
And some have to know they tried
It's the chemical weapon
For the war that's raging on inside
Everyone believes
From emptiness to everything
Everyone believes
And no ones going quietly
We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for
What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can
Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can
Belief can

Video Clip of song on YouTube

Not sure that I fully grasp what Mayer's point is entirely here but let me suggest a few things.

So much of western culture is cerebral - head based. Think about it. This gets really evident when it comes to popular culture. Societal distinctions are made on the basis of musical tastes, habitual Television viewing experiences (shows you watch regularly), reaction to movies, pundits perspectives on politics, talking points, 'branding' as a marketing strategy (Mac/PC; Nike/RBK; Telus/Bell), choice of sports team selected to win pugalistic ball game (Colts by the way), etc., etc., What these factors all have in common is that they are essentially things that we 'receive' through our senses and interact with in our brain. Even jumping around at a concert, is, at the core, an experiential element. These are not things we actually do. They are essentially things that happen to us...

In my view these are societal distinctions are becoming more and more important strata of identification. This is not how it used to be. Much more importance was put on one's ability to accomplish certain tasks. Vocational roles, gender function roles, financial status roles, etc., Now it's not that these things are no longer important but they are lessening. And things like keeping up with the lastest television show, or having the right brand of clothing are more important.

Problems around pluralism are complicated when they are related to the cognitive aspects of human experience. When one of the main functions of societal identity and one's place in it is the determination of what point of view we are going to take on this or that, we are dealing with pluralism in only one dimension.

As far as Christianity is concerned, for as long as our focus is going to be on trying to convince people to think the right thoughts, we will struggle in our culture. When we decide to be obedient to the truth we know and put into practice the best way to live - I think we will struggle less with how alarming pluralism seems to be in culture.

Luke 7:35 - "Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children."Otherwise said, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Eugene Peterson

I think this is what John Mayer is getting at here. Everyone is competing for brain space over what is the right way to think. Yet ironically for all the energy wasted on convincing people's brains our actions seem to tell the most gruesome tale about what we really think. Of course it would be stupid to shut off our brains and stop doing all this wild and wacky theology and ideology. But it might be better for us to remember what kind of pudding we actually taste like...

Exclusionary ethics

So let’s say you wanna buy some clothes…
As a hip, frugal person with limited funds you want to buy the best quality item, reflecting the most fashion sense, for the best price. But you have morals that prevent you from buy just any old place. So let’s look at the options available to you:
Department Stores: - if you can get past the child/slave labour that most of these chains use to produce their clothes you won’t get past their alliances with immoral segments of society. (Attention: Homophobes do not shop at Wal-Mart!) So I guess that put them out.
Salvation Army or MCC Thrift Store: -Well the stores certainly meet the frugal intentions and they seem to support some fine causes. But a few moral dilemmas start to emerge. Is it right for me to buy clothing that I can easily afford and in essence deny others who are poorer from doing the same? Is it right to only direct my resources to only those organizations that follow my religious or sectarian beliefs? What about quality? Is used clothing really the best possible way I can spend money on clothes?
Wait for a sale at the Gap, Randy River, LeChateau: Okay fine maybe you’ve solved some quality issues here and maybe some of these companies are trying to address global social inequities but are you really ready to support the stores that encouraged teeny boppers to wear handkerchiefs as tops a mere three years ago? I mean this is a case of supporting increasing sexualized and degrading styles, isn’t it?
Value Village – ah yes that bastion of bible college dorm wear. Let’s see. Quality - - uhhh OK. Charitable responsibility – check. Recycling – check. Cool funky smell when you walk into the store – check. Looks pretty good! Oh crap wait a second all the clothes are second hand or left over stock from all these other stores that we have just listed so…
Buy some yarn at Michaels and make your own clothes…well you might get shot!

I’ve decided to go naked.
I don’t know when our focus is on exclusion and avoidance of evil, we miss the opportunity that the power of redemption has. Sometimes they may look similar but often our actions will look very different when we become redeemers instead of accusers…