Dinner.
I think it is a sad reflection on our civilization that while we can and do measure the temperature in the atmosphere of Venus we do not know what goes on inside our soufflés—Nicholas Kurti
The word alinea is a synonym for pilcrow. In more common usage the pilcrow is the ‘paragraph’ mark. [Though as fewer and fewer people actually write with complete words, let alone sentences or paragraphs this may not be quite as common knowledge as it may have once been.] We rarely use the word anyhow, relying predominantly on the symbol: ¶. The Latin translation (a linea) is ‘off the line’. It is this definition that best suits the subsequent use of alinea in this post.
Off the line.
Atypical.
So far from the norm an entire new vocabulary is required for deriving meaning.
This is what the restaurant Alinea in Chicago’s Lincoln Park neighborhood was for me.
When A told me she wanted to have dinner at Alinea while we were in Chicago I was amenable to this. I am amenable to dining in general. When she told me that it would be expensive, I was curious what kind of expense might merit forewarning, but I carried on. When she told me that we had to get reservations months ahead, I was definitely curious (it turns out you can only book one month out and when A called within an hour of the allowable time we got a table for 9:00 p.m. on a Wednesday.)
“Molecular gastronomy seeks to investigate and explain the chemical reasons behind the transformation of ingredients, as well as the social, artistic and technical components of culinary and gastronomic phenomena in general.”
I think I am a somewhat sophisticated human being. I think I have seen lots of crazy shit and done an equal amount of it. I tend to be characterized by curiosity rather than shock. But I was totally unprepared for what would serve as my introduction to ‘molecular gastronomy.’ Not in a bad way, but this was an experience so completely beyond my ken that it simply defied explanation – as I imagine the chefs behind molecular gastronomy would hope for, it is an experience that you are never really going to comprehend without full participation.
Molecular gastronomy is the joining of (I will not say marriage, as I think there may occasionally be grounds for divorce) molecular science, both chemical and physical, with cooking, but actually the founders would not say cooking, they would say gastronomy. Hervé This (excellent article by This here), who along with Nicholas Kurti, is considered the originator of molecular gastronomy distinguishes cooking and gastronomy this way: “the first is the preparation of food, whereas the latter is the knowledge of whatever concerns man’s nourishment. In essence, this does not concern food fashions or how to prepare luxury food—such as tournedos Rossini, canard à l’orange or lobster orientale—but rather an understanding of food.” This was the first recipient of a PhD in molecular gastronomy, awarded at the University of Paris in 1996 (Now many universities are offering courses in ‘culinology’ – does that even seem like it should be a word? Here is a publication from Southwest Minnesota State University as an example and a nice layman’s overview of this entire movement.) As part of his dissertation, This identified what he believed the five goals of his discipline to be:
- to collect and investigate old wives’ tales about cooking
- to model and scrutinize existing recipes
- to introduce new tools, products and methods to cooking
- to invent new dishes using knowledge from the previous three aims
- to use the appeal of food to promote science
There are a handful of restaurants in the world that have made this new methodology of considering and conceptualizing food and taken it to the highest level – at least according to Michelin. There is a very small group of chefs who come up again and again in this field, Ferran Adrià of El Bulli outside of Barcelona (now closed), Adrià’s protegé, José Andrés (credited, according to some, for bringing the small plates concept to the United States), Thomas Keller from our local French Laundry, and Grant Achatz, the man of Alinea (and a Keller protegé).
Alinea has received a slew of awards, including the highest Michelin rating (three stars, described as “exceptional cuisine and worth the journey”.) It is currently ranked the #6 restaurant in the world.
Pretty good for a restaurant where all the food is basically based on a dare, scientifically speaking.
A Sure Thing…?
I am a strong proponent of research and investigation. I like to see if there is a scientific way to explain stuff, particularly, you know, the non-scientific stuff. This perhaps why I found Boobquake to be such a worthy endeavor, in addition to the obvious benefit of advocating for a day of trampy dress for a purpose –> science! It is in this long honored tradition of the scientific method that I recently embarked on a little experiment of my own. I am calling the project: “The Sure Thing: Myth or Reality.”
The hypothesis was born from the words of Ex #5 who said, with his characteristic charm and sensitivity, ” Oh, her? I knew I could sleep with her, she was leaving the next week.” Huh? He explained that as a young man he learned early on that while trolling visiting the beaches of Europe, one always kept their eyes out for the group of girls who were about to return to the gloomy UK after a week of “What happens in Ibiza, stays in Ibiza.” They were the ones who were going to go out with a, err… bang. It goes a little something like this:
Guy you kind of know: Hey, how’s it going?
You: Hey, wow, hi. Nice to see you, it’s been a while.
GYKOK: So, I hear you are leaving town, is that true?
You: Um, yeah.
GYKOK: Cool. Where you going? Is it, like, vacation, or like, are you moving?
You: Uh, yeah, leaving.
GYKOK: Wow.
You: ?
GYKOK: So, you wanna hang out?
You: ??
GYKOK: I always wanted to hang out with you more, I don’t know why we never did.
You: ???
GYKOK: Come on, let’s get out of here.
So, this guy is a guy you have known a while. He is probably someone you would have dated, or at least contemplated, and he probably knows this. On finding out you are leaving he is suddenly interested? Huh? Anyhow, far be it for me to purport a hypothesis without taking a little bit of time to investigate. There are three situations under analysis, and I would like to stipulate, for the scientific record, that they all presented themselves to me… not the other way around, and these seemingly disconnected events made me wonder if there was an actual connection due to the simple, and known fact that I am leaving town (at least for a while). Was I starting to take on the appearance of a “sure thing”?
The definition is simple, but the concept a little more complex: 80s term. means a person that will definitely give you sex, no excuses, no ifs, ands or buts. Sex is imminent. Frankly, I know lots of people to whom this description would be apt (and I am not judging) regardless of their tendencies towards pulling a geographical (again, not judging – been there, done that.) Then there is the “Sure Thing” stigma. I mean who wants to be known as a “Sure Thing”? Nicolette Sheridan did not seem to mind in the 1985 film of the same name, she comes across as a playa rather than a slut too, so that is a win for her. A friend I was speaking with this morning with regard to this subject said, “Every guy is a sure thing.” When I suggested that it was unlikely that could be true she replied, “Are you being daft? Name a guy who would turn down sex. Ever. ” While I am sure there are numerous pertinent examples, I suddenly couldn’t think of one.
In the name of science I have been paying closer attention than normal to interactions spawned from conversations that begin with the details of my imminent departure. Of course, this creates a whole other problem along the lines of quantum theory: “the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.” So, who really knows what is going on. I do know this, on learning that our paths would cross again on the other side of my trip to India, the circumstances of one social engagement – arranged specifically as a night of au revoir – changed in tone and tenor immediately. I don’t mind; from my side of the table the Observable was certainly not a Sure Thing, but still would it matter?
In another circumstance, the Observable was fairly direct: “You are leaving? We should get together before you go.” Alright, that seems clear. Then he added, “You know I thought you had left a long time ago anyhow.” Huh, not sure where to go with that. Doubt we’ll be “connecting.”
Finally, there is one who I actually was kind of encouraging to employ the Sure Thing strategy. ON the discovery that I would be leaving, he said, “Oh, that’s a drag, we never really got to hang out.”
“—”
And that was it.
Like Rob Reiner’s tagline suggests, perhaps “somewhere on the road to a sure thing, you might just discover the real thing.” I might add, that it is pretty unlikely to be all about getting laid, not that there is anything wrong with that….
[ps: totally forgot Tim Robbins was in this movie: I'm Gary Cooper. But not the dead one."]
“On the other hand, you have different fingers.”
On the phone with a wise woman this morning (hi, mom) I was reminded that things just are what they are. No need to get all worked up about it, results of choices, realities and uncertainties alike. They just are what they are. Kind of refreshing in the larger scheme of things in which we I constantly ascribe so much meaning to stuff that really just is what it is – no need for ridunculous reflective creation of relevance, because it could always be something else to someone else.
Sage advice fo’ sho’.
It’s like Steven Wright says: “On the other hand, you have different fingers.”
Depending on your position with regard to entanglement, interconnectedness, existentialism, the space-time continuum and such, the tendency towards “what if-ing” and establishing false causation will vary greatly. As for mental exercises: Fabulous. For much else: Um. Whatever. I like to do the thing where you go… “I am here because this happened, which only happened because this happened, which would have never happened if this hadn’t happened, which was a result of this happening, which in turn was caused by….” You get the point. Fun, yes.
But on the other hand…
My 9th graders read Bradbury’s A Sound of Thunder this morning and then we had a discussion about the (literal and figurative) Butterfly Effect. I’ve talked about this before, and while I like to think I am an existentialist, sometimes a nihilist, often absurd(ist)… in reality, I constantly find myself faced with freakish synchronicity and bizarre continuity that can only be attributed to some larger interconnected existence. So, if you got through that sentence, that is my story and I am sticking to it. If you roll the proverbial ball down the hill, then yes, its course will be irrevocably altered by the smallest of deviant pebbles, rivulets, bugs and plants. However, if you reverse engineer the experiment there is no way to say with certainty what led to the deviations and so the discussion is pointless and circular (if not fun – depends what you are smoking doing.) Things are what they are. In some cases there are clear causes and effects, in others we turn to speculation for no other reason than future contextualizing (I think we call this “learning.”) It certainly takes a lot of retro pressure off to stop trying to pinpoint the exact moment at which you “stepped on butterfly” – really, who’s to say. I mean, yeah, like you are Marty McFly. You go back in time. You start messing things up (like by making all those sequels). You ignore the paradox of time travel. You make a mockery of quantum entanglement. You know what? Things were probably going to be pretty messed up for you anyhow. And when that ball rolls down the hill, who can irrefutably say that it didn’t end up in the exact same place it might have with no alterations. The journey is a little different, but can you categorically say the end point is?
Sure, the point may lie in the journey rather than then destination.
But on the other hand…
Eckles should have stayed on the path; that was the consensus of my class. [Though one student pointed out that his detour was warranted because he was freaking out in the face of a T-Rex.] Bradbury’s presentation of the revised future was subtle enough to be absolutely frightening. Little changes over time… slight deviations. And then – BLAM! Idiocracy.
But on the other hand,
….you may find different fingers.
It’s a bird! It’s a planet! It’s a Super Earth!
Poor Pluto. Demoted from planetary status to “Dwarf Planet” (not that there is anything wrong with that of course…) and now, with the introduction of Super-Earths, I guess it is really going to be a long haul back to planetary status in spite of the eventual total debunking of Planet X.
Last week, using “off-the-shelf” (not off the hook) telescopes, graduate students working on the MEarth array on Mount Hopkins in Arizona determined the presence of an “Earthlike” planet. My initial comments on this: 1) I feel like Jodi Foster in Contact, getting to use the word ‘array’ in a relatively grammatically correct context; 2) MEarth is not quite so funny as these guys probably think- come on people, this is rocket science; 3) If they were able to determine all of the Earth-likeness” with OTC telescopes, NASA has some serious [budgetary] ‘splainin’ to do.
And first she lay down upon the bed of the Great, Huge Bear; but that was too high at the head for her. And next she lay down upon the bed of the Middle Bear, and that was too high at the foot for her. And then she lay down upon the bed of the Little, Small, Wee Bear, and that was neither too high at the head nor at the foot, but just right. So she covered herself up comfortably, and lay there till she fell fast asleep.
Of course, we can’t all just slag off our Reduce, Reuse, Recycle efforts and fully turn our backs on our own slightly less-Super-Earth just yet. Even though Charles Beichman, executive director of the NASA Exoplanet Science Institute says this discovery in “in the realm of exciting news” and this planet is loaded with water, it is scientifically described as “a wee bit too hot, but only a smidge.” WTF? It is like 300-400 °F (150-200°C). Is that the range for a “smidge” in science? Regardless of the unit of measure, this is clearly not a planet in what astronomers (apparently) like to call the “Goldilocks Zone.” [None of this is ringing any of my former science education bells... smidges and Goldilocks and wee bits? In the midst of calling us monkeys, I do not remember Jimmy Giovando covering those items.]
Still, the good news is there is water. Lots of it by the looks of things. They speculate we are talking about a planet nearly three times the size of Earth and made up almost entirely of water – a global ocean more than 15,000km deep. The New York Times is already spinning it as “sultry” and suggests that the Planet Hunters are going to be knocking our socks off in a couple of years. There seems to be a whole lot of them out there.
Same same, but different… Right? It makes me think of the Ray Bradbury short story, Dark They Were, and Golden-eyed. Not that I am completely resistant to change, but I tend to the cautious side of things. You know, like Gramma used to say, “Be careful what you wish for…”
Faith Vilas, director of the UA-Smithsonian Multiple-Mirror Telescope in Mount Hopkins said the search for planets in the habitable zone is “something that we, as human beings, should be really, really excited about.” NASA’s Beichman said he expects that someone will find a planet within the next couple of years that could support life as we know it. “Then you’ve certainly answered a 2,500-year-old question. You have scratched an intelligent itch.
Hmm. And I though it was the environment that was making me itch.
It’s the shortest day of the year!
“Call to mind the age-old spaciousness of informed imagination!”
The Winter Solstice occurs exactly when the earth’s axial tilt is farthest away from the sun at its maximum of 23° 26′. This will be at 1:47 a.m. 22 December for those of us in Hong Kong (you can work out when it is for you here.) It is unlikely that I will be awake but I like to know when it is anyhow. I mostly like that from this moment forward the days begin to get longer. Of course this was far more relevant when I lived in the more northern reaches of the mid-latitudes, but even here in the low latitudes one can tell a difference.
I find the orderly mathematics of the universe comforting, and for this reason I like the solstices and the equinoxes. I prefer the equinoxes because I like the idea of equal hours of light and dark (though that is almost par for the course of the entire year in the subtropics…) and also because my birthday falls on the autumnal equinox and March Madness peaks on the vernal. But the drama of the solstices is cool too; they seem like such a turning point in the year, like a tangible marker of time. and with the rate at which time seems to be passing these days, I like to have a little marker on the highway.
Another thing I think is very cool about the solstice is the confluence of superstition and science; tradition and history; Paganism and Christianity; labor and celebration. It is a total mash-up. Most people think all of those things are mutually exclusive, but – as a good buddy and I have decided – mutual exclusivity is so played out, all it is really is a lack of creativity. That being said, how cool to have a day where all these ideas collide and everyone makes the best of it?
But today the scientists mock the believers, and one religion knocks the other, and modern people can’t even tell there is more hours of darkness than normal because they are all lit up like the Griswolds or in the malls…
Everyone likes to celebrate a homecoming and revel in the joyous return of their chosen one, whether it is Sol Invictus, Jesus, your crazy family or spirits in the night. ‘Tis the season, so let ‘em all in. Like Carroll says in his column today, “Knowledge is holy. Season’s greetings.”
It feels like a party…
Beginning = Ending? Or… Not?
The Oracle in The Matrix had a lot of little gems that she liked to deliver with an interesting combination of didactic aplomb and relative indifference. And so she said: “Everything that has a beginning has an end.” It seems logical enough, and to be frank, anyone who has entertained the hope that things might not ever end has certainly only found disappointment, disillusionment and inevitably disproof… at the end. It is with these thoughts in mind that I have been following with some interest the developments in Geneva with regard to the Large Hadron Collider.
The LHC is an amazing machine built with the intention of simulating the Big Bang conditions. All jokes aside, this is an interesting goal. Lot of heat, lots of energy, lots of dark matter… and then boom – erm, rather – BANG. Are we sure this is what we want to do? Of course, the road to Big Banging has not been without it’s obstacles – like after eight years of construction bringing the machine to fruition, it kind of blew up when they flicked the “On” switch. £24 million later, they got it up and running again. Then this month: work on the machine was again interrupted when a short circuit took out an electrical substation. The incident was blamed on a piece of bread dropped by a passing bird. Let that be a warning to all of you who are serving birds toast. [Of course it does make me wonder what kind of bird we are talking about, you know, it always is 'a simple question of weight ratios!'] But now… Eureka! They have done it, ar at least sort of. They have “managed to smash proton beams together for the first time” causing “scientists [to] rejoice!” How nice; rejoicing just in time for the holidays.
The part I have been thinking about is the relationship of beginnings and ends. You see, if the aim of the project is to recreate the Big Bang – spilling out “energy and matter at vast speeds that eventually became stars – including our sun – planets and then life itself” it seems like there might be some stuff to clean up afterward. Especially as they endeavor to explore dark matter, antimatter and supersymmetry. So then a beginning = an ending. Not sure I am ready. Not that one ever really is… But it makes me consider the merits of the Steady State Theory. This is the antithesis of the Big Bang Theory. It has mostly been debunked, and as it was inspired by a 1945 Orson Welles film, Dead of Night, I am not sure this debunking is undeserved. I mean, scientist I am not, but I am sort of prejudiced towards slightly more sophisticated reasoning than film noir. In a (non-scientific) nutshell, the Big Bang is spontaneous, crazy, chaotic, combustible creation, while the Steady State is a nice, evenly paced, semi-static addition to the existing universe, like expanding sameness. The Steady State purports that with regard ot the universe, there is no beginning and no end. It is the universe’s version of the Tortoise and the Hare.
I think that science aside, one’s personal predilection for one of these theories over the other might say a lot about innate personality characteristics. Are you Big Bangin’ or a Steady State? Slow and steady or wild and crazy? Spontaneous or deliberate? Apocalyptic over never-ending?
If reason dictates that what has a beginning would logically have an ending, I suppose faith dictates that nothing ever really ends. In some ways both sentiments are supported by the recent discovery of Planet GJ1214b. If we wreck this planet (through inadvertant or intentional activities) we can simply go find another one and carry on. Just like the Watchmen’s Dr. Manhattan says after vaporizing Rorschach: “Nothing ever ends,” and then leaves Earth for a different galaxy.
Mickey: The whole world’s comin’ to an end, Mal!
Mallory: I see angels, Mickey. They’re comin’ down for us from heaven. And I see you ridin’ a big red horse, and you’re driving them horses, whippin’ ‘em, and they’re spitting and frothing all ‘long the mouth, and they’re coming right at us. And I see the future, and there’s no death, ’cause you and I, we’re angels…
Mickey: I love you, Mal.
Mallory: I know you do baby, and I’ve loved you since the day we met.
“We choose to go to the moon…”
Today is the day – the 40 year anniversary of that small step for Neil Armstrong… But was it a giant step for mankind? I often wonder what it would have been like to be seeing that Apollo mission live – (and to that end, this website is awesome recreating the Apollo 11 mission in real-time: http://www.wechoosethemoon.org/ – the photos, videos and audio are completely cool) – would I have been as impressed? More impressed? With which element of the experience? Or would I have been like John Updike’s Rabbit, “I don’t know, I know it’s happened, but I don’t feel anything yet.”
The anniversary of the moon landing has been a marketing boon in a waning economy and this is not too surprising considering the fact that, as A.O. Scott says in his brilliant piece in the New York Times, “it was at once a science project and a media spectacle.” And this tenuous connection between science and popular culture continues to fascinate me. My interest in science has always been a curious relationship. I find certain elements of it amazing and others tedious. I love experimentation and hypotheses and discoveries… I loathe manipulation and metonymy: “The Science” indicates this, “The Science” says that. Ever since Professor Randlett pointed out that habit of hiding behind “The Science” in the early stages of my graduate studies I have always smirked a bit to hear someone say, with self-satisfied authority, “Well, The Science has shown…”
A survey carried out by the Pew Research Center shows that there seems to be a growing disconnect between the public and science. This is hardly surprising, but the bizarre thing is that people still think scientists are super important, like respectable, but they don’t believe anything that the scientists are saying (although they seem to believe things that “The Science” tells them.) I imagine that would be super irritating as a scientist. I mean, to be rated as the third highest group (behind the military and teachers) as far as contributing to society, but then have significant scientific theories disregarded, like evolution and global warming seems like a frustrating intersection to be gridlocked in.
It likely comes down to the fact I keep running up against, which is that people believe what they want to believe. I actually know people who believe – for real – that the moon landing never took place. This is harder for me to swallow than the reality that people don’t believe in evolution or global warming… but not a whole lot. [Even Lloyd Christmas worked it out eventually...]
Perceptions of what is important in science are also changing. “As an example, ten years ago, 18% cited space exploration and the moon landing as the country’s top achievement of the 20th century. Today 12% see it as the greatest achievement of the past 50 years.” But looking at what “The Public” (there is that troublesome metonymy again) says about important contributions in the last fifty years and you will see the answer with the highest number of responses is “Nothing/I don’t know.” [I don't know? Are you fucking kidding? I admit, that I am still amazed is puzzling.]
So, on this day, amidst moon madness, recalling the last 40 years since that Apollo landing, I wonder about the hype. There is talk of returning to the moon by the year 2020. Good Ole #2, Buzz Aldrin said of walking on the moon, “I would never stoop to call kicking up dust on the moon a stunt, but it certainly wasn’t a pioneering effort that led to sustainment.” It seems like this could be money better spent, though I would love to have a go at a lunar escapade, so I understand the guys that want to have at it. And as we all know it all comes down to funding, so this will likely end up a partisan pissing contest in Washington. How Obama handles it will be interesting. Kennedy sure wowed ‘em back in 1961 speaking at Rice University.
There is something kind of awe-inspiring to think about the pace of progress which JFK reiterates in his speech, and to think that we are choosing to stymie that kind of scientific progress at the expense of religious zealotry or partisan politics is pretty lame. For what it is worth, we did it, and I think it is something to be celebrated. But the more pressing reality is that we need to celebrate and reward the pursuit of knowledge on a more regular basis… the normal everyday stuff that might just save our asses eventually – unless the Jetsons really do end up being our neighbors.
For now, looking towards Wednesday’s new moon in Hong Kong… I feel more akin to Jerry than NASA…
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
Area 51: STFU, I know more about it than you.
The Latin translates to "Tastes Like Chicken"
Counter cultural bullshit and occult-ish hoo-ah interest me as much as they do the next person. Yeah, I am being precise, seriously about that much. So, of course my interest fluctuates with my company, but if you are going to talk about this kind of stuff, it would be so helpful if you had a clue. Really, even just a small one. I would suggest to you that the most serious government conspiracies are the ones taking place right in front of your face everyday… they taste like chicken, yo.
I became interested in Area 51 after spending a year or so studying atomic history, specific to the western US (if you are interested, this is an awesome introductory site.) My area of study at that time was the Nevada Test Site, a specifically designated area within the extensive Nellis AFB, which lies outside of Las Vegas, Nevada. As I learned more and more about the Manhattan Project and the ramifications of Teller‘s dreams of glory I became more and more fascinated by the power of rhetoric and cartography in the geopolitical context.
There is something wonderful about maps – I am not sure what it is, but I have always had a deep appreciation for them. I suppose initially it had to do with how powerful they are as an informative tool. You know, like the secret treasure map concept. The there is the aesthetic value of cool maps. But in more pragmatic terms, I am amazed at the power of maps to lend legitimacy, nee existence, to places and spaces. The idea that by taking something off a map you actually somehow make it “go away” is radical and crazy and, apparently, real.
The desert regions of the American West were always the first selected for the most secret (and egregious as I have mentioned before) military and scientific activities in the history of the US. It is my belief, along with people like Bernard DeVoto, Carole Gallagher, Valerie Kuletz, Rebecca Solnit, Dina Titus, Don Worster, and maybe most personally significantly to me, one of my advisors, the amazing Peter Goin, that the geography of this area and the potential for manipulative cartography made it the dream destination for Dreamland (see really recent 0.5 meter resolution sat image here) and dropping bombs. My eventual thesis project was called The Importance of (In)Visibility and the specific subject area was Area 51. I spent a year doing research and fieldwork in some of the most bizarre places in Nevada – and as Nevada is already totally bizarre, just imagine.
Jesus H. Christ and Charles Darwin: Together Again
God loves you, but most of the time He thinks you’re acting like a fucking idiot.
~ You Look Great, via Twitter
This year marks the 150 year anniversary of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Known generally as The Origin of Species, this work is described by many as a seminal work of science forming the foundation of evolutionary biology. There is much confusion about the nature of Darwin’s ideas by people who tend to follow headlines rather than read, but basically, he described a phenomenon whereby changes occur in species based on natural selection of superior traits. You know, like gills, or tails, or bad-assed jaws, or say, opposable thumbs. Of course logic dictates that Darwin may have been suggesting that we evolved from *gasp* other animals, like say, oh, monkeys. But he doesn’t really come out and say that. He presents a case that looks at the changes and similarities in species over time. I understand that my philosophical background may predispose me to agreeing with Darwin’s ideas, but they seem pretty logical to me. I certainly have an easier time buying his theories, even without irrefutable concrete evidence, than I do believing that there was one guy, and then from his rib was created another. But that is just me.
Catalyst: Agent for Change
How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress. ~ Niels Bohr
catalysis – An action between two or more persons or forces, initiated by an agent {CATALYST} that itself remains unaffected by the action. [Origin: Greek katalusis, dissolution, from katalūein, to dissolve : kata-, intensive pref.; see cata- + lūein, to loosen; see leu- in Indo-European roots.]
I was thinking that I liked the idea of being a catalyst, you know an agent for change. But I am not sure that it is actually possible to be such an agent and truly remain unaffected by the action – I suppose I am to Jungian to accept that, so now I am not sure if I like the idea of being a catalyst after all. I mean, affecting change in all that surrounds you and remaining unchanged? Meh… no thanks.
Still, to be a catalyst is tempting… “A catalyst is not consumed by the reaction itself. The catalyst may participate in multiple chemical transformations. Catalysts that speed the reaction are called positive catalysts. Catalysts that slow down the reaction are called negative catalysts or inhibitors. Substances that increase the activity of catalysts are called promoters and substances that deactivate catalysts are called catalytic poisons.” Personally, I am looking for a promoter and hoping to eliminate the catalytic poisons. [The positive and negative aspects are both required in certain times and places, so I am down with those.] Remaining unconsumed is probably for the best.
In the following ways I act as a catalyst: I am a catalyst for change among my friends; I am a catalyst for productivity in reticent adolescents; I am a party catalyst (best served with Patron – or maybe not.) However, in all of these interactions – though I remain fundamentally the same – I am changed. I would like to actually investigate whether or not it is actually totally possible that something can act as a catalyst [a reactive agent] and not somehow be different. I mean if nothing else there would have to be a temporal change, right? So there. That is different. Right? Not to mention that the etymology of the word indicates that it comes from ‘dissolution’ or to dissolve… shit – that is the ultimate transformation, no?
Semantics? Probably. But I like the idea that people have acted as agents of change for me – and to think that they remain unchanged from this? I wonder. I suppose it comes back to the philosophical muse/ruse surround the existence of the unobserved. Does something exist if it is not observed [read = validated]? The perfect paradox, right? Maybe… but I subscribe to the idea of quantum entanglement: that “it’s possible to link together two quantum particles – photons of light or atoms, for example – in a special way that makes them effectively two parts of the same entity. You can then separate them as far as you like, and a change in one is instantly reflected in the other.”
Inextricable linkages.
Like it Centurion, like it.
Consider the myriad ways we might affect people on a daily basis and not realize it; the smile at the guy counting passengers as they get on the ferry… did it make a difference in his day? The weird look rendered to the guy who cut in line at the coffee shop – changed? I think so. I don’t know so, but I think so. And in my not knowing, am I unchanged? I could have frowned I could have cursed, would it make a difference? I like to think so. I know I have been catalyzed by things which will never be aware of the change they precipitated in me specifically. But their presence at any given moment in time set them on a course that is different than the one they would have been on had they not been there at precisely the moment I interacted with them. They are out there for a reason - we all are. Either way, I see a great branding opportunity here:
CATALYST: Agent for Change
I’d buy the t-shirt.
Apparently Red Bull Gives You More Than Wings
Two days ago all of the Red Bull in Hong Kong was pulled from the shelves after it was announced that trace amounts of cocaine had been found in the “energy” drink. This makes me laugh. Because of course what has really happened is now Red Bull is THE most sought after convenience store commodity. [I am sure that eventually it will be "uncovered" that Red Bull actually leaked the information...]
I remember when I first started hearing about Red Bull, and it’s subsequent rise to popularity as a mixer for really obnoxious co-ed cocktails. It tastes like shit and makes me burp – so I am not a fan. That aside… I was interested in the urban legend that it contained bull semen… Taurine is apparently present in both bull semen and bull urine (yummy!) but of course, let us be serious for a moment – it is not the source of the taurine used in this beverage. [Really, do you think this company has an entire department of people dedicated to bovine pleasure-providing? I doubt it.] It takes it’s name from the Latin taurus because it was first discovered in ox bile. Other than that it seems to be an enzyme that has some significant functions, though none of which seem to have to do with energy as I can tell. The science of all those energy drinks is suspect in my opinion anyhow.
When I moved to Asia in 2005 I was introduced to Thai Red Bull [Krating Daeng]. This was not the Red Bull I had experienced in California. It still tasted like shit (like Sweet Tarts and Sprite somehow blended together… yuck) but it seemed to have a little more of a kick. When you go to Thailand and hit the beaches the drinks are called ‘buckets.’ This is because they actually are served in a bucket. Into the bucket goes a fifth of the liquor of your choice (Thai Sangsom – rumored to contain speed is generally the most popular), a can of Coke, and a bottle or two of Thai Red Bull. Then you walk away with your bucket and a straw. Good times.
I tried to bring Thai Red Bull back to Hong Kong and it was confiscated. So, maybe the Kong just has an issue with Red Bull in general. Who knows. [Oddly, I was able to bring it home to the States with no problem.] For sure the Thai stuff seems to work better than the stuff in a can (it even looks more pharmaceutical in those little bottles.)
Really, I am not sure what all the fuss is about – I mean where do people think Coca-Cola got it’s name? We have a long history of fascination with “energy” enhancing products. Just ask Sherlock Holmes, or anyone who has studied medicinal/dental history, or anthropologists who work with native peoples of South America… Those coca leaves got the Inca the reputation of the most fleet footed messengers on the continent if not the planet. Chasquis could cover up to 240 km a day… in the Andes. I am thinking they had a little somp’in somp’in to keep them going, if you get my meaning. My dad used to give my step-brother a six pack of Jolt Cola (remember that stuff?) to get him to clean his room. The kid was ten. And by the way, it worked a treat.
Our obsession with chemical means to enhance our energy, performance, mood… whatever, has gone through all sorts of transformations, mutations and justifications. All this stuff is marketed to deal with mental and physical fatigue. As I sit here drinking a gigantic cup of Jamaica Blue Mountain coffee, I get it. I like how I feel after coffee better than how I feel before it. Every time. Sleep is sooooooo last millennium. Get with the program.
And so, here is hoping that the 852 will release the beast and put Red Bull back on the shelves before Saturday when I will be attending the most kick-ass party I have ever heard of: A 7-11 Crawl. When I heard that this was how a friend of mine was celebrating her departure from Hong Kong I thought I might have died and gone to heaven. We will be going from 7-11 to 7-11 (there are more than 850 of my beloved convenience stores in Hong Kong) across Central and Western Hong Kong as a pub crawl. Best. Idea. Ever.
Amanda
