Blogs I Know · Simplicity

A good thought – but

You knew there was a “but” right?

Every now and then I pop into mmlist.com which has some good insights into simplicity.   Most of what he says I agree with in principle, but….  a couple weeks ago  there was the article, society, reimagined,  Leo treats us to his imagining of a better society but I also felt there was something very much missing in his look at society.

If there is one thing modern, urban simplicity advocates forget it is the invisible screen against which their lives are projected.  What do I mean by that?  Well, quite simply there is a whole mesh and network of things, services, stuff, that is a scratch and a peck under the surface that we never see, we never know about but it is there and without it all our systems would crumble and most people would find that crumbling utterly unbearable.  Which I realize is probably clear as mud so I will pick on poor Leo and pull out his ideas and use them as examples.

Junking the car: It sounds like a good idea, getting rid of our cars –  working closer to home or even working at home with mass transit available for those times when one must travel.  To urbanites it is an awesome idea.  Not such a great plan if you are rural and the nearest mass transit is 50 miles away.

I don’t hear a lot of simplicity advocates wanting to get rid of mass transportation, emergency vehicles or freight.   These are part of the screen.  We like the fact that our homes are not right up against the clothing factory or the manufacturing site, but as long as we want mass transportation and freight someone, somewhere has to be building buses and trains,  these are built out of parts that must be manufactured, from materials which must be manufactured from raw materials that have to be harvested and shipped.  Then to run the bus or train you have to have fuel (some sort of energy), it has to be maintained, the roads or tracks it runs on have to be maintained.   All this requires energy, people and raw materials.

While the simplicity advocate might really want to have their nice little community free from cars in the street where are these mass transportation workers going to live?  Is the miner going to raise his children within walking distance of the mine?  What about the ore smelter, the steel worker or the parts manufacturer?   We do not have (nor can I imagine we will develop) technology that will make aluminum parts manufacturing for mass transit vehicles a clean process – certainly not one I would want to raise my children in the shadow of – which, considering my husband works for a company that makes freight vehicles, buses and emergency vehicles, is a real possibility if we are going to localize industry.   If we are going to advocate a change in how we  loco-mote we need to consider the holistic costs of what we are thinking of.  Do we create a better community for ourselves and our children while leaving those families who enable this lifestyle living in the shadows of factories and manufacturing plants or do we sacrifice transportation as we know it.  How much would we be willing to sacrifice in order to improve our communities?  Would we give up mass transportation, freight or emergency response vehicles?  And if not willing to do so are we asking others to live in a way we would not choose to in order that we may live as we want?

Locally Grown Food: I like this idea, but the idea that we are going to grow enough food in back-yard and community gardens to sustain families is — well, naive.   Farms, family farms, those sized large enough to produce enough food for the family living on them can only be so small.  Just think of how much land you need to devote to growing food in order to supply yourself and your children (and your parents) with enough food to survive the year.    I suspect my family could do in it our area (the insanely rich and fertile Willamette Vally) on right around 20 acres.  This would produce enough for us and enough to trade.  If we are just looking at sustaining ourselves 10 might be possible and that is with modern preservation techniques.   If we lived in a community were we could trade skills for grain-crops closer to 5 might work.  A back yard garden or a community garden plot is not going to supply my family’s needs.  That is reality.  I would love to  think that I could possibly manage to do it on a 1/4 acre or something, but that would be delusional.  There is an interesting discussion here with more thoughts.

Now organizing communities around farming, going back the the village model is something that rings right in my soul.  If we were mostly farmers with some tradesmen here and there we could return to a system of locally grown food as the center of most family’s diets.   But we would have to sacrifice a lot of modern life.   This would require a rural agrarian life style for almost everyone. Which is going to mean smaller communities overall. Then you loose some things.  You are not going to have a universally “wired” world and a universally agrarian world.   The energy and manufacturing needs of a digital society are so enormous that the two are in reality incompatible.  Building buses and trains is nothing compared to building computers, digital networks and modern communication infrastructure.   Who will be feeding these factory workers making the microprocessors, network cable and video screens?  Again do they have to farm and work in a factory?  The amount of time to plant, harvest, preserve, store, prepare and serve homegrown food is astronomical.   Not equal to the amount of time most of us work at our livings today, but it is an everyday of the year gig.

And mmlist actually does go into the idea that the ideal simple world would be a world that was highly digital.  Look at the manufacturing footprint of your basic laptop, it dwarfs the bus or firetruck, then  look at the foot print required for a digital infrastructure.  Are we ever going to be able to provide that style of living for everyone?   How this is supposed to happen I can’t even imagine.   Sure I agree that this sort of vision could be real in some places, maybe the college towns mmlist suggests, I am sure Eugene would be game for it, at least in parts, but I think that vision of simplicity only works as long as it is a subculture within a highly developed, factory manufactured, consumer base world.   Sort of a new aristocracy, as long as there are enough serfs to plow the field the royalty can live resplendently, just don’t peek too closely at the lives of the serfs.

What is missing in the vision?  Humanity.  How do we provide a quality, dignified existence to all God’s children?  It is not enough for us to envision a life that benefits us while harming others, it is not enough to free ourselves and our children while leaving the rest of the world in the mud.  Sure we can do just that, but is that in any way better than shopping at Walmart and buying cheep, plastic, crap from China?   We eventually have to make the choice.  We will eventually have to give up the freight and the digital infrastructure if we wish to have an equitable world, or we will have to accept that some parts of the world will always be the “slaves” to the wants of the rest.

Parenting · Simplicity

Simplicity Parenting

I finished “Simplicity Parenting: Using the Extraordinary Power of Less to Raise Calmer, Happier, and More Secure Kids” by Kim John Payne this week.   I wanted to love it, I liked it a lot, but it also left me sort of grumbling.   Generally I would recommend it but with the following caveats: it is not a book well rooted in the “Voluntary Simplicity” movement in general, it is not really about parenting and it certainly isn’t from a Catholic/Christian world view — not even a slightly ascetic world view.  If you pick up this book thinking you are going to read about how to parent within the voluntary simplicity lifestyle you are going to be disappointed — this book is NOT about that.

All of this I can understand, the author’s work isn’t about the simplicity movement; he is drawing from his work with his clients (presumptively mostly wealthy or solidly middle class, duel career couples with one or two precious snowflake children).  These people are not the type to embrace a radical lifestyle change — so for those of us on the more radical lifestyle path there are going to be a few places at least where we stop and point to some really hugely obvious issue and say “You could eliminate that problem entirely if you were just willing to be a little more counter-cultural”.

Western children are not particularly happy.  They live in the richest time and culture ever imagined and yet they are stressed, unhappy, out of shape, insecure, hyperactive, troubled little people.  They are figurative (and sometimes literally) starving for essential nutrients while becoming obese on a rich diet of sugar and fat    And we, their parents, do this to them – at the very least we let our society do this to them.  Payne gets this right and he also gets much of the solution right – I would argue that he doesn’t take it far enough, but Simplicity Parenting is a good, maybe even a great,  start.

Payne does a fine job laying out the case that what our children suffer from is the result of  “Too much, too fast, too soon.”  He points to the forces of consumerism, the self-fulfilling  marketing axiom “Kids are Getting Older Younger”, the work of David Elkind, and the endless appetite for parents to push their offspring to gain a competitive edge for the future as forces of modernity and consumerism are swirling  around our children pulling apart their sense of security and even their sense of self.   These forces push children into stress responses where they react in their own particular ways, the quiet thoughtful child becomes more withdrawn, the active child bounces off the walls, the child with the forceful soul becomes aggressive.  The book then bogs down a bit with a chapter comparing the over stimulation of children with physical illness.   Several examples from Payne’s  practice are trotted out to illustrate the “Soul Fever” concept and how simplification of the child’s world helps alleviate the “symptoms”

Where Simplicity Parenting touches on great is that it isn’t like so many of the current “problems with childhood” books.  It doesn’t spend 200 pages hand wringing over the plight of our children followed a short list of “action items”.  The book is almost a workbook.  It breaks several core concepts down into digestible chunks – phases to walk through.  And the book is brimming with “process” while illustrating the intention and hoped for result of each phase.

The best laid out phase is the first:  “Environment”.  Simplicity Parenting walks parents through the  process of de-cluttering their children’s rooms and “stuff”.  Toys are given extensive treatment.  Books and clothes are next up for culling and then scent and lighting (focusing mainly on the child’s room but also briefly touching the home in general) .   Coming from a Waldorf point of view Mr Payne has some definite opinions about what makes for good, creative play, especially in the early years.    The craziness of Rudolf Steiner aside I think there is a lot of value to some of the ideas of Waldorf — not all mind you but some of them.  I also agree with many assertions that Payne makes about the inability of children to really enjoy anything when they are overwhelmed by “options” and “choices”.   All in all getting rid of the “stuff” cluttering our children’s lives and rooms is an important and logical first step in simplifying and enriching their lives.

We then turn to “Rhythm”.  This is a very “Waldorf” idea, the one I think that is probably most valuable.  If you are going to plunder  from Waldorf this is the one concept to grab first.  Payne draws the concept of ritual into rhythm in a way that is natural and works.   This is also the chapter where the reality of what Payne’s audience will  accept and the reality of what children probably would thrive with comes into  crashing discordance as illustrated with the almost harmless sentence, “Rhythm and ritual are what we aim for; predictability may be what we can achieve.”   We then jump the tracks and start talking about how to compromise for predictability.

There is a subtle yet devastating switch at this point.   With “environment”  i.e. “stuff” the decluttering and dejunking focused on the child’s room and things.  Mention was made in passing that unless the the entire home went the way of the children’s things and simplified and decluttered that the child’s world would revert to a cluttered disorganization cacophony.   The hypocracy of expecting the children’s stuff to simplify while the parents stayed on a hyper-consumerism course would not work.  It might seem obvious, but it is glossed over for the rest of the book, if the parents lives are an unpredictable, overscheduled, over worked mess then all the good intentions to bring harmony, rythme and order to the children’s schedules are much less effective in the long run.  The imbalance and  hypocrisy will most likely overwhelm the attempt.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t good ideas in the rest of this chapter.  Some of the author’s thoughts  “previewing”,  the idea of going over the next day’s event, giving a child an idea of what to expect, is very powerful.  When the usual rhythm and schedule is disrupted this sort of preview can give the child a sense of control, but it is a piss-poor substituted for the comfort of normal rhythms and predictable schedules.   Among the other valuable items are little nuggets of parenting thought that seem to be commonly missed, children bond with us through the little daily things we do, that some of the best relationship building moments happen in the unstructured “down-times”, parenting is more craft and process than it is a checklist-able, goals oriented production.  Bringing back and simplifying the family dinner,  dumping “edible food-like substances’ and nutritionally dubious treats, creating bed-time routines and allowing for more rest, the return of the bedtime story and creating a sense of family connection with the sharing of family stories and history are all really great ideas and well worth incorporating.

Before leaving this section I also want to point out something that drives me a little batty.  There is explicitly stated the idea that a teenagers “work”, their developmental stage, is one of defining themselves in opposition to their parents.   To illustrate here is a quote about 15 year old Alison the daughter of Laura, “Alison’s full-time (developmental) job right now is to push Laura away, but on her “time off” she does what also comes natural to her.  She can think of her mom as an alien one minute and, thanks to their broad and deep connection, snuggle with her the next.”  This is my personal pet-peeve, so I won’t belabor this, but it IS NOT a teenager’s job to push their parents away.  Despite even modern takes on Freud and Erickson much of the conflict of this stage of development is constructed behavior based on the ridicules idea that young adults are busy with the work of developing their own identity and that means that they must have some kind of raging personality conflict with their parents.  This view is aberrant, the creation of marketing and social forces that undermine parental confidence and keep teens in the infantile  self-identification phase as long as possible, not allowed to take on adult responsibility and deprived of any meaningful work, their sense of self allowed to be defined only on the most superficial aspects they become easily controlled and herded through the corridors of shopping malls and high-schools, trained to be good little consumers, basing their sense of worth on the trappings of success, what they own, wear, drive and on physical perfection and competitive victories.  Ok, so maybe I did belabor that a little bit.   But it is almost astounding that in a book entitled “Simplicity Parenting” there wouldn’t have been at least a little questioning of the “teen” paradigm.

After Rhythm we turn to a very similar chapter on Schedules.  It seems that the author’s main distinction between rhythm and schedules is age.  Young children have rhythm, older children have schedules.   Within “Schedules”  there is a bit of an extended mixed metaphor of farming and sports and children’s over scheduled lives.   Payne makes a strong arguments for the worth of boredom, that busy days be balanced with calm days and he even make the daring suggestion of returning a sense of Sabbath to our daily lives.  All great ideas.  I really like what he says about the joy of anticipation and what it can give to children and I found the idea that over-scheduling can lead to an unnatural need for stimulation that replaces “inner development with outer stimulation”, a nascent addiction.   We then turn to the pressure parenting issue.  While Payne focuses on sports and martial arts this concept also applies to just about every aspect of a child’s world, schooling, art, music, dance, sports, all these good things get thrown into some deranged hyper-drive as parents compete to have the most wonderful little snowflake child possible or they at the very least feel compelled to give their children the “competitive edge” they “need” to succeed in the adult world.  Parents need to disengage their egos and hope and let their children approach life at a slower more balanced pace.

The final process chapter is “filtering out the adult world”.   The first part takes on the used of media “screen time” and how it is detrimental for very young children and at best of questionable value for younger children.   We then look at balance a child’s need for emotional safety and their need to explore their world and the role of parents in helping them navigate these conflicting needs.   We also look at the way parenting has shifted home is no “base camp” from whence children launch their adventures while over anxious “helicopter parents” flit overhead driven to protect their children from a horribly dangerous world.  The world of course is not much more dangerous than when these parents were young, but the immediacy of media and the desire to constantly sell the alarming makes risk assessment difficult.   There is also a few page of the reality that moms especially are overworked.  The female partner of duel career families almost always is the one to bear the brunt of child rearing responsibilities.  Payne gives us a few idea about the possibilities of father taking on responsibility for somethings — but this is a woefully under addressed aspect of this book.  Among the best ideas from this chapter are limiting screen time, talking less, monitoring less and trusting our parenting instincts more.

The conclusion of this book was strange.  We are present the tale of Carla, her hyper career oriented parents and the baby brother on the way.  At six Carla is stressed about the arrival of a rival and her parents are worried that their “production schedule”  will not go off as planned unless Carla becomes a team player and gives her buy-in to the baby-brother roll-out.   After her bedroom is de-cluttered, daddy adds “dinner” to his day-planner a few times a week and mom makes time for daily a special craft time with Carla (even though some nights mom is rushing to get take out to make the dinner meeting)  started to decompress and feel better.  I understand that the book would have been ill served to select a “perfect” family willing to make drastic changes in their lives and that is probably just as good that  we see that even small changes can be good, but this particular story just seemed to illustrate my problem with the book as well.

No one gets to have it all.  When we are unwilling to say, “I will trade off this good thing for that good thing” and instead just try to fit more “good things” into our days and lives eventually something breaks.  When we as parents try to fit our babies into our hyper-schedules, pop them into six weeks maternity leave, and then after work and weekends while we continue to rush forward at break neck speed in the career world somewhere a wheel is going to go flying off and more often then not it is the weakest link, the most vulnerable and sadly the most precious, it is the children.   Now I know that many people, probably all of Payne’s clients, and a good portion of the audience of Simplicity Parenting would swallow their own tongues before they would be willing to be so counter-cultural as to scale back, scale down, work less, consume less, live smaller, but yet at the same time live more fully, but that is the natural conclusion of almost all Payne’s arguments.  Yet he stops from going to those conclusions and leaves all of his great ideas at the children’s bedroom doors.

Uncategorized

A video to share

I am linking this so that the blog layout doesn’t chop it off.  I enjoyed this video this morning.  Monastic life in the Coptic tradition.

The way Father Pete had to work through and deal with letting go of the distractions of life was inspirational.  I am convinced that all these modern things, the noise and stuff and business of modern life dulls our senses to what is most important.  Father Pete says, ” The goodness is the struggle and to be aware that it is a struggle, be aware that we are constantly making choices between the good and  bad, the good choice and the bad choice.  I’m not very good at it.  But I’ve come to acknowledge  since being here  the importance of that struggle and that it is an eternal, human struggle and that not to engage in it means that we just fall asleep; we become numb and I was numb when I got here.  I know that now.”

Uncategorized

Online Friends

Pamah’s husband died in January, Jinlong wrote a book, Wilken’s mom has been fighting breast cancer and Rayzur and Berdina just celebrated the birth of their most recent grand-baby.  I don’t “know” any of these people in real-life, in fact I only know one of them by their real name, but they are friends all the same and I have known all of them for at least three years.  We all play World of Warcraft, spending an evening a week working on the latest “puzzle and problem” of the “dungeons” in a “world” of shared imagination and experience while talking on the VoIP system and generally having a great time.

There is an odd nature to online friendships.  In games, on message boards, in the blog-sphere, you get to meet and know people and you find things in common and you enjoy them.  But they are not as close as real-life friendships, there is still a wall of separation – anonymity,  but they aren’t as messy or as much work as real life friendships either.  Years ago I saw a movie called 84 Charing Cross Road (a really terrible name for a movie) about two book lovers, one in Great Britain the other in the US who start corresponding over  books and become “pen-pals” and good friends yet they never meet.  I remember when I saw the movie that I wondered at forming a friendship through letters; so much of what makes people friends is shared experience, but it worked.  With the advent of the internet it is rather common place now.

There will always be those limiting factors to online friendships, and yes, it is somewhat easier to be “fooled” in online relationships of any type.  Which is why I guess I am leery of online romances.  Actually, I actively roll my eyes at them because my experience with them (both personally and observationally) is at best humorous.  There is always that way back somewhere in the back of the head thought that I am only seeing what others choose to show me.  I have seen so many total fakes online.  Especially on parenting sites sadly enough.  I have seen babies who were in critical condition that ended up not existing at all, community members who were in medical residency who ended up being college freshman – and more.  I have heard of many more than I have seen, one vivid one was the whole April Rose thing from last year which suckered so many in the Christian mommy-blog world but yet was most astounding part of that to me was that it made national news  — these reporters really are clueless, these things happen online all the time.

Online relationships suffer from but at the same time are blessed by the fact that so much is “fill in the blank”.  Since we can’t experience the person in real life we are forced to fill in those missing parts with imagination.  The facial expressions, the tone of voice, the look in the eye are all supplied by the receiver of the message.   It is the flip side of the main reason why online disagreements turn ugly so quickly – you don’t see the person on the other side of the screen, their “reactions” are supplied (or not) by your imagination.  If you are inclined to them being friendly towards you (or in love with you) you imagine what you wish reality to be.   So Pamah looks at me as a heartfelt friend, Jinlong smiles at my jokes and is glad to see me, to Wilken I am the aunt you can tell your troubles to and Ray and Berdy are good neighbors who always have a smile and a wave.   Which all sounds crazy in a way.  Since so much of the friendship is in my head if one or another drops offline I am not grieved, I think about them, wonder how they are from time to time, but I certainly don’t feel the same loss I would for someone I actually saw every week if they were to move away or end our friendship.

Despite their short comings online friendships are a general positive in my world.  I have met some of them and been very happy with the experiences in general.  When I heard of Pamah’s husband and Wilken’s mom I prayed for them, although it seems odd to pray for someone who’s name you don’t even know there is a thread of connection.  Too much I am sure for my poor brain to figure out, but my heart doesn’t have a problem with it at all.

84 Charing Cross Road

Uncategorized

Why do we do this?

Korean Saints
Korean Saints

One of the things I love about being Catholic is that we belong to an eternal communion of Saints.   I know it might sound odd, or even a bit off-putting to those not of the Catholic faith, but for us papists time and space are compressed, we pray with the Apostles, the thief on the cross who acknowledged his Savior, with Mary Magdalen and the Virgin Mother and  a host of  those with forgotten names  who lived out blessed lives in obscurity and yet pray for us and with us from the feast of Heaven.   No matter when they lived, or how they died or where they were in life they are with us always and we are all before the throne of God in prayer now.

They are there, the Saints, in continual example of what we can and should be.   And we who are here on earth should all be working towards that end and helping one another along the path as best we can.  Which leads me to the thought that has been bugging me the past few days.  Why on earth, when we should be encouraging and helping one another do we seem to invest so much energy in pulling each other apart?

Now I understand on a psychological level why this happens, why we break into little subgroups and why we divide ourselves along nearly arbitrarily lines and why we are critical (sometimes to the point of cruelty) to those who violate what we establish to be norms.   The more strongly we feel something is important the more likely we are to become somewhat exclusionary around that topic, but I have seen several times where a group (of theoretically friends)  has literally torn itself apart over some rather minor disagreement of a practice or .  Homeschooling, Parenting and Faith groups  I think are all particularly susceptible to these kinds of breaks where some here-to-fore minor subject will become a point of disagreement and people will pick one side or the other and then things get ugly.  And by ugly I mean that it gets to the point where people are picked apart on a person level.

I would hope that in groups united by faith there would be more honest tolerance,  more personal responsibility and less us vrs them, but does not seem to be the case.   I have seen Catholic moms online go after each other quite heatedly (and even gotten involved in the craziness  myself) over some point or another.   Question like “head cover at mass or not”, “when is NFP ok”  or “Is some thing Catholic enough”  and the like.  Things one hesitates to call minor because they are important, but when compared to the totality of what we hold in common are they really that big a deal?  Big enough a deal to loose all sense of perspective?  Really I have no answers I just observe these things now, having learned long ago that only unhappiness can possible accompany participation and I pray for all involved, because I well know that most natural response to feeling attacked is to close off and protect one’s self.   If we really want to convert someone to our point of view we have to approach in gentleness and kindness.  Which leads me to think that all too often these arguments, disagreements, points of difference are much less about helping others see what we feel to be truth and really about making ourselves feel better about our own positions.

Uncategorized

Just being Catholic

Last week I was at a meeting and the conversation was very interesting.  Why are there so very many practices within the Catholic faith – some of them common, others not quite as well known – and how is it that from parish to parish the understanding of these customs is so different.   I think in general it is a good thing to have such a huge array of possibilities before us, but it can be over whelming, especially to those who are new to the faith.   We have the Precepts of the Church so there is a standard of “basic” and that basic is a pretty good start.

Lent

small and hidden

When I was in Vienna I spent a day just going into churches.  This was before my conversion to the Catholic faith, but I love these huge beautiful churches.  In one church I was walking through admiring all  the beautiful work and in one corner, behind a pillar where few if any people would ever see, was the most delicately painted angel – small and hidden.  Who knows who painted this little master piece, some unknown apprentice – but the love of the artist gleamed through this little angel’s face.  It reflected not just the talent of the artist but the love of God which fired the heart and created art.

I saw this video for the first time today and obviously it resonated with me.  I couldn’t help be draw the parallel with St. Therese and her “little way” of Mother Theresa’s thoughts on the importance of doing small things with great love. It seems a perfect thing to share for Lent.

Lent

Two kinds of Lent

I seem to have two kinds of Lent.  The first is that kind of Lent where I do Lent.  I think a bit before hand, I give up something that is difficult, but not overwhelming.  I read more, I pray more, I attend mass regularly and it is really a good experience – I am richer for it by the end.  I feel closer to God on Easter and life is good.  That is not the kind of Lent I am having this year.

This year Lent is one of those that happens to me.   I don’t feel quite prepared in the first place and then it just sort of happens.   Sad things happen, tragic things even.  Or good things happen but they bring their own basket of stress and worry.  There is beauty and joy — warmer days, blossoming trees, good friends, happy children, and life and spring, but the on the balance it feels hard.   Then Easter comes and it feels different.  It is a finish line;  it is a door to walk through and leave Lent behind.  I find myself closer to God because I have needed him so much and life is precious.  That is  the Lent we are having this year.

40 trash bag challenge · My world

I have to laugh at myself

So, I have been totally overwhelmed the past two weeks and have been seriously remiss in my blogging efforts.   I am still working on my 40 bags but I haven’t been updating as well as I would like.

But I have to say it has been really fun hearing about how many people are doing the 40 trash bag thing this year.   I guess it has been sent out to a bunch of email lists and has been on a few forums.  I hope everyone who is doing it gets something valuable out of it and has a better Lent for the letting go of stuff.