Tuesday, July 22, 2008

quirks

Freder1ck, at Deep Furrows, tagged me for the six quirks meme. Here's how it is supposed to work:

1. Link the person(s) who tagged me
2. Mention the rules on my blog
3. Tell about 6 unspectacular quirks of mine
4. Tag 6 fellow bloggers by linking them
5. Leave a comment on each of the tagged blogger’s blogs letting them know they’ve been tagged

So, here are six among many (when I asked my kids to list my six most noticeable quirks, they told me it was impossible -- that I am totally, inside and out, quirky):

1. I have never in my life used a smiley or an emoticon in an email (which is a quirk because I use them with reckless, annoying abandon when I use IM or Google chat).
2. I have an irrational and subconscious dread about going to the post office -- I don't actually experience fear or dread, I just "forget" or put it off in such a reliably predictable way that I don't know what else to call it but "dread."
3. I can't stand conference calls -- one person on the line at a time, thank you.
4. For the most part, I prefer children to adults.
5. I have never walked out of a movie, no matter how horrible it is.
6. I have emotional relationships with whole numbers -- this was how I adapted to the problem I have with math; by assigning/discerning a particular emotional significance for each number, I was able to turn an equation into a kind of "story" and thus solve it. The emotion that each number carries doesn't really have anything to do with its traditional symbolism, either.

Okay, here are the people I tag:

1. Sharon at Clairity Daily
2. Jen at Mommy of Many
3. Stephen at Musings Of An Ordinary Catholic

Everyone else I know with a blog has already taken a stab at this meme!

1 comment:

Emily said...

I hear you on the post office thing. It wouldn't be so bad if the workers were friendlier...

Dumbstruck by the Mystery

...our temptation is always to impose our prejudices or our measure on reality -- except when we are faced with a fact that leaves us dumbstruck, and instead of dominating the fact ourselves, we are dominated, overcome by it. If there were no moments of this kind, the Mystery could do anything, but in the end, we would reduce everything to the usual explanation. But not even a Nobel Prize winner can stop himself from being dumbstruck before an absolutely gratuitous gesture. If there were not these moments, we would find answers, explanations, and interpretations to avoid being struck by anything. It is good that some things happen that we cannot dominate, then we have to take them seriously, and this is the great question of philosophy. If the conditions for the possibility of knowledge (see Kant) impose themselves on reality or if there is something that is so powerfully disproportionate that it does not let itself be "grasped" by the conditions of possibility, then the horizon opens. If this were not the case, then we could dominate everything and be in peace, or at least without drama. Instead, not even the intelligence of a Nobel Prize winner could prevent him from coming face-to-face with a fact that made him dumbstruck -- instead of dominating, it was he who was dominated. Here begins the drama, because I am called to answer. It is the drama that unfolds between us and the Mystery, through certain facts, certain moments, in which the Mystery imposes itself with this evidence. These are facts that we cannot put in our pocket, which we cannot reduce to antecedent factors.
-- Julian Carron in "Friends, that is, Witnesses."