but would jefferson be proud?

Something about calling a beer democratic warms the cockles of my heart.  Drink of the people and all that.  So the Mashtag had to come home with me.  According to the label, it was created with input from a number of craft brewers, hence the democracy.

It's a beautiful brown and bubbly.  It has an excellent chocolate color, with a little chocolate smell too.  Although it's bitter at first taste, after swallowing some sweet hangs around the top of the mouth, which is an interesting sensation.  The label says hazelnuts are among the ingredients, so that's the answer to the sweetness.  The beer is also mildly smoky, reminiscent of a stout.  All in all, a solid team effort with grade A results.  Tasty and pretty, a beer that didn't disappoint.

And I bought chocolate on sale today too...

What Can We Reasonably Expect From Friends?

The topic was proposed by a woman who was always somewhat baffled by a poster in her classroom as a child.  It said, "A friend is someone who will give his (or her) life for you."  I imagine it was supposed to evoke Jesus as your best friend, this being highly Catholic Spain and all.  Still, with that kind of requirement for friendship, how many friends can we truly have?  Can we ourselves be true friends with that kind of responsibility?  This woman's opinion was that a friend is just somebody who helps you solve problems and gives you what you need in life, without the necessity of a supreme sacrifice.

Our resident Renaissance man gave us a picture of the development of the words friend and friendship, saying that in Romance languages they are related to the word for love, while in Germanic languages "friend" and "love" come from different roots entirely.  It probably colors our perception of people, if only subconsciously, to have our relationship with them pre-defined as loving.  He went on to say that friendship requires affinity, that friends enjoy the same things, and lack of self-interest.  Being somebody's friend because of some favor they can do for you is not being a friend.  In my opinion, however, every human relationship is really based on what you get out of it.  If you think you're not getting anything, or at least anything good, you drop the relationship.  But I also don't believe in altruism as a real thing, just a convenient idea.

The Real Philosopher told us that the more answerable question is "What Can Friends Reasonably Expect of Us?"  To my mind, it is the same question, just phrased in a more generous way.  It follows the "do unto others..." bit.  After all, how can we reasonably expect something of our friends if we would refuse to give it ourselves?  Another participant mentioned the assumption of deeper friendship than actually exists, saying that many people believe themselves to be closer to others than those others feel them to be.  It's a sort of unrequited friendship, but one that probably stems from a basic misconception of the term and the requirements to reach that level of relationship.

So what are the requirements, besides the aforementioned affinity?  One is intimacy, actually knowing the person's life and character.  This is the basis for our expectations being reasonable; if we know our friend makes $5000 a month, we might feel asking for a $100 dollar loan isn't a burden.  Of course, we must also know that our friend is not stingy with money or in a situation where giving loans to friends is not the best option (health problems, old debts, etc.)  The key is our familiarity with both the personality and the circumstances of our friend.  This is a level of intimacy that is crucial to the existence of the relationship.  How to reach this intimacy?  Time.  Spending time with people is essential for sharing experiences and ideas, which will all trust and intimacy to develop, as well of shared interests and affinity, and affection and care.

The problem now is that we expect immediate gratification, not only in our physical wants, but also in our relationships.  There is a confusion of "friend" and "acquaintance", which is not helped by social media calling virtual contacts "friends" from the get-go.  It's entirely possible to develop a friendship with a person you never see face to face, of course, but the time to share ideas and feelings over messages or Skype is still a necessity.

It was mentioned that culture often dictates what a friend is, with our Organizer pointing out that many societies condition their members to never accept "outsiders" as friends, even as individuals develop an intimacy between them.  It seems to be the case in many places, that your only friends are the ones that you met in school, while anyone you meet after you turn 20 is just some level of friendly stranger, and your "friends'" friendly strangers are more suspect than any person you have no connection with whatsoever.  At the same time, because of the previously cited confusion, many people assume a friendship where none can exist yet.  If you meet somebody, you know them; if you know them, you are friends; if you are friends, you have intimacy.  These connections happen in the space of seconds, not nearly enough of the necessary element - time - for real knowledge, friendship or intimacy to be created.

One participant even made this point inadvertently while disagreeing with me that intimacy was necessary for friendship.  His argument was that you can smoke a joint with somebody, but that doesn't make you friends.  Yes, that was the whole argument, showing a misunderstanding of the term "intimacy", which is the problem that modern society seems to have.  This participant was of the opinion that all relationships are based on self-interest and people do nothing but use each other in a calculating fashion, not that any time shared makes an instant friend, but the misunderstanding is still there.  He later mused that it is probably useless to look for support from others, and the best way to find happiness, and friendship, is to be one's own friend first.  At least we should be aware of our own circumstances and abilities, so we should know what to reasonably expect from ourselves.  Of course, that kind of self knowledge often seems to be lacking in a great many people, but self knowledge or self-awareness is really another topic.

So in the end, what is a reasonable expectation between friends?  I believe I will maintain that it is that which does not cause undue suffering.  It's an entirely vague and unsatisfying answer, but in this case it seems unwise to generalize.  Hell, in every case, but sometimes it's more fun to think in generalities than for this topic.

to help with a diet?

I finally made it to La Tienda de la Cerveza, months after being "invited".  There was quite a variety on the shelves, which made it hard to decide what would be the most appropriate choices.  Finally, I picked up Pink Killer, because it reminded me of a visit to a beer loving country a bit more than a year ago.

Adorable

Has a collar and everything

This Belgian fruit beer has an interesting orange-pink color in the glass, and loses what little head comes out pretty quickly.  Unlike other fruit beers, the additive isn't especially sweet: pink grapefruit.  It's a choice that should play up the bitter of the beer, and in this case it really does.  There's a very light coating of sweetness on the taste, with a hint of something just a little sour.  It's kind of like some of those sourball candies.  I'm a little put off by the smell, though.  It reminds me of cleaning products.  Maybe because they all have citrus cleaning power now.

The Masks We Wear

This topic had been suggested several times in the past, but this time I dredged it up to fill out the list and it got voted for.  My initial thoughts were focused on how we seek to avoid offending or upsetting people around us, either through politeness or strategy.  A couple of other good points came up in discussion.

It's accepted that we can't be completely honest about what we think or how we feel about things, mostly to avoid causing problems with the people around us.  They can be people we care about, like friends and family, or people who have the power to make life difficult, like bosses, police, or other authority figures.  We might have a different mask for every situation, some similar to each other, some much more subdued or loud or vulgar, etc.  But some masks are not "acceptable"; they are used, not to prevent bad feelings, but to manipulate or control.  Some people lose themselves behind a particular mask, leaving the others aside, like somebody who has lost a loved one to a cult might think.  Where does the mask end and the person begin?

While I was considering only behavior, it was pointed out that physiognomy also carries mask-like qualities in people with awareness and good control over their physical selves.  It's a difficult task, as many reactions are beyond our conscious control, like blushing, or tics.  A good actor always wears a mask, one that's made of his/her own face.  Even without make-up or special effects, s/he can convey a character to the audience, with all the personality that character has.  In fact, another participant insisted that she was more herself on stage than she was in the street, since those characters she got to play were more like her real self than society wanted her to be.

Which moves us to the next point: our masks are based on societal expectations.  Human beings are social animals, herd animals even.  We like to belong to groups, both for our own inclusion and, almost contradictorily, for the exclusion of others.  Those groups all require a particular persona to be a part of them, and we take on that persona when belonging appears to be the best for us.  The mask is a psychosocial strategy for survival which allows us access to others in ways that are determined to be acceptable, everybody playing a part in the great play that is life.  Another contributor mentioned the psychological construct of the ego, id, and superego, although her terms were slightly different.  Basically, her view was that the ego is the mask we construct from the internal pressures of the id being combined with the external expectations presented through the superego.  In this vision of the self, wouldn't that make the id, the selfish and self-centered part, the most "real" person, while the ego was simply a constructed mask?  The same person later stated firmly that altruism, rather than selfishness, is what makes somebody a real person, and is one of the keys to an individual's happiness.  I couldn't help but wonder how much that has to do with the conditioning that individual receives versus being a natural and inevitable mental/ethical development.

Another idea that came out in discussion was how our masks are actually chosen.  As already mentioned, society has expectations of us, and my line of thought was following the path that people chose their masks voluntarily, with some idea of the rewards involved.  However, sometimes masks are imposed upon us, especially in the family environment.  In those cases, we have little choice in the mask that we wear, one that was assigned practically from birth, and in some cases even before.  Because of a child's dependence on the family at the beginning of life, there is little to be done to escape an unwelcome mask.  Children either adapt to them or find a way to escape, which means abandoning the safety and support that the family is supposed to afford to its members.  It was also mentioned that children aren't really aware of wearing the mask, especially at very young ages; they only experience the reactions of people around them to their behavior and generally don't calculate their actions with a great deal of foresight and long-term planning.  Their "self" is still developing, probably, a self that will be a composite of the masks they've been presented with.

In the end, I'm left with one idea: nobody knows us.  Even when we are "honest" with others, they receive our honesty through their own filters, warping the message to some extent.  Even those closest to us can never see what we really are, know our real thoughts and feelings, because we are separated by our physical selves, each with its exclusive experiences.  The best we can hope for, in terms of community, is only pissing off people we wouldn't want to associate with anyway.  Because they're so easily pissed off, probably.

reelected

 Despite my less than impressive previous experience, I couldn't resist picking up the black label Senador Volstead from the import store cooler.  I assumed it was a dark beer and, managing not to flood my table, I was rewarded with an amber brew, of fleeting head, and a puff of apple aroma.  The beer is sweet, without any particular notes at first.  Maybe there's a little chocolate after a couple of sips.  The flavor remains mild throughout the drinking, not becoming oppressive or sticky.  It is recommended to go with food, "any kind" of food, but this time I think the Senador can stand safely on its own.

Anděl

Když jsem byla mláda, babička bydlela v chalupě v lese, a jezdili jsme tam na dovolenou každé léto.  Pomáhala jsem ráda doma a taký mě bavilo živit kuřata a osla.  Jediná věc, kterou neměla ráda u babičky byl obraz s andělem.  Visel v chodbě vedle ložnice babičky a každou noc, ona ho osvětlala svíčkou a modlila se malou molitbu před obrazem.  Nevěděla jsem proč, ale neměla jsem ho ráda.  Byl to jemon anděl, typický, s křidlama a svatoyáří.  Oblicej byl laskový, ale měla jsem z něho husí kůži.  Nerozuměla jsem proč, a ted'tomu taký nerozumím.  Někdy jsem měla sen o andělovi, když jsem byla u babičky.  Smál se a smál se ve snu a měla jsem hrozný strach.

Jedno léto, poslední léto s babičkou, jednu noc jsem měla zlý sen.  Vstála jsem o půlnoci, spocená a těžko se mi dýchalo.  Šla jsem do kuchýně pro vodu a musela jsem projít kolem obrazu.  Světlo měsíce dovolilo, abych viděla jsem anděla a stuhla mi krev v žilách.  Anděl stál, měl ruce v bok a díval se na mě přímo z obrazu. Proběhla jsem s hrůzou a skočila sjem do postele, a nechtěla jsem vstávat až do pozdního dopoledne.  Konečně jsem musela vstávat a projít okolo obrazu a byl stejný jako vždycky.  Pověděla jsem to bratrovi, ale on mi nevěřil.

Brzy potom babička onemocněla a celá rodina měla o ní strach.  Snazila jsem se nedivat se na obraz po západu slunce, ale někdy jsem zahlédla jeho výraz.  Čím hůř na tom byla babička, tím byl anděl veselejší.  Nikdo mě nevěřil a nevěděl, co pro babičku udělat.  Nakonec jednoho odpoledne, umřela.  Jeli jsme na pohřeb do vedlejší vesnici a vratili jsme se v noci na chalupu.  Bylo pozdě a šli jsme spát, a já jsem se podivala na obraz.  Anděl stál - s babičkou!  Babička měla výraz plný klidu.  Nezdálo se mi, že by byla smutná a nic špátného necítíla, ale anděl se škodolibě smál.  Objevil se vedle mě bratr a upřeně hleděl, s pusou dokořán.  Oba jsme za křičeli, ¨Mamy!¨ a přišla maminka, která nás vyhodila do ložnice.  Nevím zdali viděla anděla, ale příští ráno, byl obraz prázdný.  Nebyl tam babička, nebyl tam anděl, nebylo tam nic.  Ten den, maminka spálila obraz na zahradě a nikdy jsme už o tom nikdo nemluvil.

Gender

The effect of this concept on our lives has many facets and accesses to our psyches.  For one, many languages have a so-called grammatical gender, where every object is considered to be in the same group as either the human male or female (some, e.g. German, also have a neuter).  There is also the biological/social idea that lies behind the grammatical categories: human beings are either male or female, and each one has particular characteristics.  "Gender" for people, then, is something that you present to others and/or something you feel yourself to be.

The gendered categories of gender are something we have inherited from the Greeks and their rational approach to knowledge.  Other languages outside of Europe have different categorical divisions in their experience of the world, although I believe they all separate men and women.  Some might try to argue that this separation is merely technical, grammar related, and has nothing to do with how we see ourselves, each other, and the objects that are forced into a group with us.  But, that does not appear to be true.  As reported on Lexicon Valley some time ago, by giving objects the grammatical attribute of human gender, we also give them human attributes associated with that gender.  My question is, where do these attributes come from for people, and is their association with objects the root or just a reinforcement of this attribute distribution?

How do we decide on our gender as human beings?  The simplest way is assignation by physical build, based on the genitals presented at birth.  However, there is a number of people who seem to present one gender but have characteristics of the other in other areas.  Some babies do not present a clear physical gender.  Some people have physically presented one gender, but mentally or emotionally are connected to the other.  Then, there are some who do not identify with either gender, calling themselves gender queer or third gender.  Our society is clearly binary in this respect.  Although we can accept the idea of a trans-sexual, most of us refuse to entertain the notion that a person could have no gender or something like both.  We acknowledge physical hermaphrodites, but expect them to "choose a side".  Where do the ideas of both or neither come from if our society has so clearly established the binary choice of male vs female?

We also know that the characteristics associated with each gender are not stable over time and change through time and in different cultures.  The rigid gender roles that social conservatives wax nostalgic for are mainly a product of the Industrial Revolution in the West, with the changing demands on individuals and families and shifting environments for living.  Some "primitive" societies have been more egalitarian, and just a few as close to ungendered in their expectations of individual behavior as biology might allow.

The burdens of biology was a theme hammered on again and again in the meeting, with the main issues being the inefficiency of reproduction and the inherent unfairness of judging worth by physical appearance.  It is understandable to some extent; by dividing society into separate strata, each with its own sphere and possibilities to contribute, competition is limited.  One competes only against one's "like", not against all members of society.  One contributor asserted that since our idea gender is social, it can be changed, but that change is difficult since it requires some risk-taking on the part of the authority.  Many men in a position to hire women will hesitate, since his hire's failure will reflect badly on him, moreso than if he had hired an incompetent man.  It is a symptom of a prejudiced society, although the fact that the opportunity to hire somebody from a different stratum exists is a positive point.

In terms of pure gender division, we seemed to agree that the actual behaviors are driven purely by societal expectations, not by any natural inclination.  An example given by one participant was his ideas of what "feminine" people do versus what "masculine" people do, in which carpentry did not fall into the feminine category.  He was shocked when he met a Swedish friend of his wife's who was a carpenter, a woman, and a straight woman.  His previous social conditioning had told him that people who perform those kinds of activities are "masculine", so either biological men or lesbians.  He also mentioned his wife's scolding him for his assumptions as a difference in what he had been brought up to expect in feminine behavior, since his society is more male-dominated and men direct while women tend to listen submissively.

Towards the end, the opinion came out that our constructed reality can evolve much more rapidly than our biological reality.  This has an impact on any sort of prejudice, probably.  The tribe demands a loyalty that precludes any idea that individual happiness has more moral weight than the survival of the tribe.  Anyone who is different may be a threat.  Our ideas about gender may have made good sense in the past; they could have been the basis for survival under certain circumstances.  But in modern Western society, how much does it matter what gender anyone is?  There are still jobs where brute strength is a requirement; we can freely admit that people of a certain gender category tend to be physically stronger than those of another.  But, why ban all those outside that gender outright?  There are enormous numbers within that gender who don't meet the requirements of physically demanding positions, and a few in other categories who do.  There are good reasons for those of the other categories to stay away, reasons most likely based in social expectations and reactions than on pure objective fact.

In the end, we didn't make any sort of decision about anything.  What is gender, how is it decided, we were bogged down in the social effects rather than the causes.  Well, that can only mean a return at a later date.

prayer in a bottle

Benediktiner, sitting on the shelf, like a sign from some god.  It's another classic, with the golden straw color and foamy head.  The smell is very light, but hints at the sweetness in the taste, without the sour that comes in the aftertaste of some other wheat beers.  It's a shame it's all rainy right now, since this really seems like a relaxing after-work beer, but the rain on the windows is a little distracting.

Language and Mind

So this topic came from a somewhat unlikely source.  It's also surprising that it was voted, considering the lack of appreciation most people have for language, although they do fancy themselves observers of the mind.

From a psychological perspective, the two are said to be linked in that they appear together - language and thought depend on each other for development.  As for differences, language is relatively objective, being concrete sounds and words, whereas the mind is entirely subjective, since nobody can really share their mind with others.

The study at the University of Kansas, all those years ago, seems to point to language acquisition being essential in the construction of an "intelligent" brain; children who weren't in the best language environment were also not the best students.  Something about the way the brain builds itself around language, at least the English language, prepares the pathways for assimilating other information, or at least being able to make known that you have some idea about it.  Some in the group insisted that all children naturally picked up language, missing the fine point that the extent of their abilities depends very much on their environment.  The basic level isn't too hard to come by, but really refined capabilities require a lot more attention from caregivers.  This idea was echoed by a late arrival towards the end of the meeting, based on his studies on human language at the distance education university, so it sounds like this is what's being accepted academically at the moment.

Something that came up again and again was the link between culture and language, almost implying that the mind is a product of those two mental acquisitions.  We express our culture with our words and expressions, and part of the difficulty of learning another language is in fact the perspective it has on the world.  More than memorizing words, a new language is a new mindset, which is much more difficult to wrap our brains around and be able to use in a meaningful way.  For the vast majority, foreign languages are just "secret codes" for their own, and they never progress beyond their own native perspectives, either out of laziness or ignorance, or simple lack of access to the foreign linguistic perspective.  Although we can learn throughout our lives, the networks that allow for new perspectives in our minds seem to be created only in early childhood.

Following on the idea of cultural perspective, social hierarchies and prejudices can be conveniently coded in the language without the speakers even being aware of how it affects them.  This is the cause of debate on gendered insults, racial epithets being used as general insults, gender neutral job titles, etc.  Most of us like to believe that we are fair people, that we don't have any undue influence that makes us discriminate against others.  Yet, by using words that do in fact single out a particular group as less good or valuable, or solidifies a particular group as respectable or noble, our language does justify a social hierarchy we aren't even consciously aware of.  Social change comes when people are aware of the need and willing to address it.  Hence, we must be mindful when it comes to our language if we want to know what we are really saying and why.

Inevitably, animal language came up as well.  Most people agree that other animals don't have a language in the sense that humans do.  However, it also seems true that animals, especially pets, can understand a certain amount of human words, and they do have methods of communication, principally body language, that humans can learn to decipher.  The distance student put forth the opinion that some animals, e.g. dolphins and some primates, will have language similar to human language in the future, it just hasn't been evolutionarily necessary for them yet.  But they are on they're way to it.

Maybe Up and Steve Cash have shown us the future.

nothing fishy

I was about to pick up a Harviestoun porter, but the label wasn't very nice.  Wrinkled, a little tear in the middle...shall I be so affected by appearances from now on??  I'm pretty sure Thirsty Trout Porter is not going to disappoint as a replacement, though.

It's not actually late, it's just rainy

Add caption

 Properly black, with only a smidgeon of head, it does give off an appetizing sweet smell.  The sweet and hint of bitter seem to hit at the same time, which makes for an interesting flavor experience.  It's a nice dark chocolate taste, with just a touch of smoke.  The chocolate taste becomes more and more evident, making this a fine dessert sort of beer.  Unlike many porters, it doesn't have a list of suggested foods to go with it, foods that invariably include chocolate cake and the like.  I don't know, the beer itself is chocolate dessert enough for me, although I could go for some cake later on.  When the glass is empty, say.

Yum!

OK, now for real, with light and everything