I’m 59, But Feel 19, But Something’s Wrong with My Body

A common sentiment among older people is they still feel young inside, just like when they were teenagers, but it’s their body that’s aging.  I feel that too, but yesterday it occurred to me that I have changed because of a conversation I had with my friend Mike.  We were talking about how bad the old TV show The Monkees was – it’s in reruns on Antenna TV.  Back in 1966, when I was 14, my sister and I loved that show.  Watching it now makes me think I must have been brain damaged!

The Monkees is a horrendous TV show.  It makes Gilligan’s Island feel like Shakespeare, and that’s another old show I loved as a kid but can’t stand now.  So I can’t really say I feel like I did when I was young, something has changed.  But why do I feel unchanged?

If I think about it I can come up with all kinds of ways I’ve changed.  When I was a kid I did stupid things like own a motorcycle, hitch-hike and take drugs, none of which I would do now.  I now think a much wider range of women are attractive, but that’s true of food, music, books, etc.  The more I think about it, the more I realize that I’m not the person I was when I was young.  So why do we feel we are?

I think the tendency is to feel that we’re a little soul driving around inside our head, steering our body until it turns into a rusted old junker.  Now I guess some people feel they are different inside as they age, but I think a lot of people don’t.  What causes that feeling?  It just occurred to me that I’ve reread things I wrote decades ago and felt I was reading someone else’s writing.  Are our inner beings unconnected to our thinking and opinions too, like they are from the body?

Is there a me inside of my body that’s unchanging even though my body changes, my tastes change, my opinions change, my skills change, and so on?  I know when I’m sick I can feel the me-ness shrink inside, like its being physically assaulted, but the uniqueness stays there no matter how much pain or nausea I feel until I pass out.  When I fall asleep the me goes away, but a tiny bit of it exists in dreams.  When I’ve had surgery and have been put under, it feels like the me has been shut off like a light switch and then suddenly turned back on.

It’s interesting to think of the me, the part of me that’s self-aware, is separate from my opinions and tastes. There’s a science fictional concept called downloading, where people imagine having their brains recorded and then burned into a clone’s brain or digital computer.  They think of this as a form of immortality, but what if the me is a mechanism of the brain that doesn’t copy?  What if the me is the equivalent of a tape-head, and not the tape?  So experiences flow past it but it doesn’t change with them?

But that doesn’t explain why I loved The Monkees in 1966 and hate it in 2011.  It implies that it’s not the tape head, or that the tape head does change over time.  Even though I feel like I’m the same person at 59 as I was a 19 that might be a delusion.  If I could put my 59 year old brain back into my 19 year old body would would I keep my wisdom or turn foolish?  Of course, if I could I put my 59 year old brain back into my 14 year old body would I start loving The Monkees again?  I don’t think so.

I’ve read that people with brain damage feel like different people.  I’m guessing the brain is what feels homey and constant, and it’s the physical body that feels different with aging, and the informational content of the brain that makes my tastes change.  What I worry about is having a stroke or getting Alzheimer’s and losing part of my me-ness.  I’m already used to my body breaking down.  And I’m getting used to forgetting information in my brain, which doesn’t hurt by the way.  But I don’t relish losing that feeling of unchanging me-ness.  But sometimes the me dies before the body.

NOTE:  I think a lot of people read my stuff and think I’m depressed because I write about what they think are depressing topics.  But I’m not depressed at all.  I marvel at all the changes in my life.  I regret not being able to hang onto everything, but that’s not how things work and I accept it.  I don’t want to experience decline and death, but I don’t have any choice, so I like to philosophize about what I’m going through.  And I’m trying to learn from those explorers ahead of me, those folks in their 70s, 80s and 90s.

JWH – 4/11/11

Amazon Cloud versus iTunes versus Rhapsody Music

All my music loving friends are building their digital collection of tunes, but we’re all doing it differently.  Many of us have bought the same music over and over again in different formats.  I’ve bought LPs, CDs, SACDs and currently pay for streaming rights.  I know some people that have done LP, CD, and are now back to buying LPs again.  Younger people tend to have only acquired MP3/AAC files, but they have a hard time maintaining them.  You’ll know what I mean if you’ve ever had a computer go dead or stolen, or have gone from an iPod to an Android smartphone, or any other platform or hardware shift.

When Amazon Cloud came out the other day I bought “Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands” by Bob Dylan in the fourth format I’ve owned in since 1967 (LP, CD, SACD, MP3), and that doesn’t count the monthly fees for streaming that I pay to hear it.

What me and my music friends want is a place to collect our music so that we can organize it once and for all and have it for the rest of our lives no matter what kind of gadgets we own to play our music.  On the surface Amazon Cloud looks very promising, but if I put my 18,000+ (117gb) songs in their cloud I’ll be paying Amazon as much for cloud storage rent as I pay Rhapsody to have access to 11 million streaming songs.

Obviously I think anyone who is willing to spend at least $9.99 per month on music gets their best deal at Rhapsody, and all other choices depend on spending less per month.

I very seldom listen to my CDs any more, and I rarely buy them.  When I discover an album I really love and I’m afraid it’s going to go out of print someday, or I’m anxious to hear it in its highest form of sound fidelity, I buy the CD.  But I can almost see myself giving up CDs and living with Rhapsody music for the rest of my life.  If I only knew that streaming music will catch on and will always be offered in the future, I’d sell my CDs.

There’s one huge downside to streaming music – services like Rhapsody can only offer music that’s for sale.  If an album or song goes out of print then it’s removed from the service.  Maybe in the future nothing will ever go out of print, but for now I can’t trust that.  If I really love a song I have to buy a copy.  I don’t want to be an old man crying, “I’d give anything to hear that song one more time.”

Now, if I was as unethical as kids and willing to steal my music things would be different, because everything seems to be available for free online.  However, there is a cost for stealing music that I think is pretty high.  Building a collection of stolen MP3s take a lot of work and time.  Rhapsody is easy and convenient.  Amazon Cloud is easy and convenient too, but I’d have to always buy MP3 versions of songs I wanted to keep, and that means I’d spend more money than I do now at Rhapsody.  First would be the fees for storing my old ripped CD songs, and second the price of any new songs I added in the future.

Also, if I switched to Amazon Cloud service, I’d have to give up listening on my iPod touch, and would need to buy an equivalent Android device, like an Archos 43, or start spending a lot of money and get a smartphone.  Rhapsody works wonderfully from my iPod touch, but Apple might screw things up for Rhapsody in the future.  Amazon seems to have no plans to offer their cloud service to the iOS devices.

I could go with Apple, but that would mean listening to a tiny fraction of music that I do now for the same money.  iTunes is absolutely the worse deal of the bunch.  If Apple had kept everything about the Lala streaming music service they bought, I would have probably given up Rhapsody.  Lala was a fantastic social service for music lovers.  Apple seems to have no plans to provide a streaming music service despite years of rumors.

Rhapsody.com and Audible.com are two Internet companies that I spend money on.  Not only are they a commercial success with me, but I’d hate to live without them.  Both work well with my iPod touch.  Both have great clients for my PC.  Both support a wide range of devices and smartphones in case I want to use something new.  And I don’t have to worry about backing up any of my files I get from them.

Sorry Amazon and Apple, your model of owning music just isn’t practical, efficient or cost effective.  I don’t know why all my music friends don’t use Rhapsody or other streaming music services.  I think most of them started with Apple and just don’t want to switch.  I discussed this with a woman at work Friday.  She has 32gb of music in iTunes.  She’d like to get an Android phone because they have physical keyboards, but she doesn’t want to deal with porting that many AAC files to MP3.

Now that is one advantage to the Amazon Cloud for owning music – if Amazon stays in business, is always trustworthy, and protects its cloud data 100% – because the cloud takes over most of the hassle of managing the files.  If there was no subscription music services I’d definitely be going with Amazon.  But like my friends stuck in iTunes, what happens if something new comes out in the future that doesn’t work with Amazon’s cloud?

So what would be the ideal music delivery system?  One that offers every song ever recorded with the most convenient interface to whatever device I’m listening with at the moment with nearly instant and perfect search tools.  Whether that’s based on buying songs or renting them, it would make listening to music the easiest possible outside of telepathic transmission of music.

But it’s not the best way to collect music.  I’m reading The Man Who Loved Books Too Much by Allison Hoover Bartlett, about a rare book thief.  The book provides a great insight into compulsive collecting, and I think it’s also a clue as to why some people will always want to buy music in a physical format.  It also explains why LPs are making a comeback.  Those big 12” discs in beautiful jackets are an art form that some people love.  But if you love to listen to music, streaming music is to great to resist.

It will be interesting if I live to 2020 or there about, because I bet this music problem will probably be completely resolved by then.

JWH – 4/9/11

The Decline of Science Fiction

I was playing with Google Insights for Search and Google Trends and discovered that science fiction is in decline, or at least the popularity of searching on the term in Google.  I started with this Google Trends chart on science fiction:

SF-trands

I then switched to Google Insights for the rest of the comparisons.

Warning, the totals given on the graphs are not always accurate – they vary with the cursor position on the time graph.  So ignore them.  Just look at the lines, or I’ll give you the averages from the Google page.

decline-of-science-fiction

Trying to understand what the numbered scale means is hard, but here is Google’s explanation,

The numbers on the graph reflect how many searches have been done for a particular term, relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time. They don’t represent absolute search volume numbers, because the data is normalized and presented on a scale from 0-100. Each point on the graph is divided by the highest point, or 100. When we don’t have enough data, 0 is shown. The numbers next to the search terms above the graph are summaries, or totals.

When I was growing up they talked about the big three of SF writers, Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke, so I did a graph of them.

big-three-SF-authors

Asimov is by far the more popular writer now, but all three writers show a decline in interest.  And why did Asimov have a spike in July 2004, and Clarke in March, 2008?

Because Google doesn’t give actual numbers it’s hard to gauge absolute interest, so I plotted “space travel” versus “Lady Gaga” and got a rather sad graph:

lady-gaga-space-travel

Space travel hits the 0 mark in comparison.  So I did space travel by itself and got this:

space-travel

Interest in space travel is in sharp decline.  So I wondered how science compared to science fiction and created this chart:

time-travel-v-space-travel

Now I’m starting to doubt my methodology.  Why is time travel so much more popular than space travel?  Or is it a matter of how the phrases are used in popular culture.  I thought I try another comparison to test things.

science-fiction-v-nasa

Science fiction is 2 compared to NASA’s 19.  But notice, interest in NASA is in decline too.

time-travel-v-sf

But science fiction is 57 compared to time travel’s 26.  Time travel is probably a common term that’s well used in popular culture outside of the field of science fiction, as is science fiction, but it’s hard to gauge phrase from genre.

st-sw-sf

Star Wars is way more popular than Star Trek and both are more popular than science fiction.   Is that huge spike for Star Wars due to films or the discussion of the defense anti-missile program?

To get some real world perspective I did a comparison to iPods and iPhones.  On the Google page the totals were SF is 0 and the iPhone and iPods averaged 28 each.

sf-ipod-iphone

Trying to zero in on the popularity of science fiction I tried:

sf-kings-of-leon

So science fiction is about as popular as the Kings of Leon before they hit the big time – or at least on Google.

Finally, how does science fiction compare to other genres.

writers

On the web page fantasy and science fiction each get a 2, romance gets a 6, and mystery gets a 28.

Why is murder a more a interesting fictional topic than the future?  Go figure.

I don’t know if any of this means anything, but it is interesting to play with.  I linked to the two services at the top, so go test them yourself.

JWH – 4/9/11

Blogging by Candlelight and Paper

I started this blog last night while the power was out, writing with pen on paper by candlelight.  My power was out just 45 hours, but some people on my block still don’t have power.  I think after the storm Monday as many as 60,000 homes were affected.  We’ve had our power out as long as 13 days here in Memphis.  Memphis is a sea of trees if seen from the air, and when we get high speed windstorms lots of them blow over.  Down the street I saw where one tree fell and knocked another over.  My power was out because on the next block over a tree fell on the power line and pulled the pole over and the wires down.  Two houses over they had their power line pulled off their house.

The first night without power my nephew was visiting and we sat up playing rummy by candlelight, but he left first thing in the morning, to continue on his trip from Portland, Oregon to Lake Worth, Florida.  I thought my power was going to be out until Friday, so I was bucking up for two more nights of darkness and cold but MLGW fixed me.  Having these incidents are very educationally, and even though I hate when things like this happens I try to make the best of them.

I spent a lot of time last night thinking about being addicted to the grid.  I found plenty to do in the dark.  I have an iPod touch with 22 unabridged audio books on it.  I also found an old Walkman and a box of old time radio shows on cassette, so I listened to a 1950 episode of Philip Marlowe Detective.  But I spent most of the evening thinking about how we live on the power-water-gas-information grid and how ill-prepared we are for when things go wrong.

When I came home yesterday I had plan to take my frozen food to my friends house, but by then it had gone mushy.  I had to toss out most of what was in the refrigerator and all the stuff from the freezer compartment.  So I started thinking about how I would eat for three days.  I figured I could eat out, or buy food that doesn’t require refrigeration.  I didn’t want to mess with an ice chest because we had just thrown away two that had gone mildewy.   A neighbor a few doors down was running a very loud gas powered generator, and I thought about buying one of those for the future but I decided against it too.  I hate the noise.  It does protect the food but they take a lot of gas, so I figure it would be a breakeven deal.

What I wanted was more light.  I had three flashlights, two candles in glass lanterns and a giant block candle with seven wicks, but even with nine flames I didn’t have enough light to read comfortably.  I once read a wonderful book about America in the 1800s and it chronicled how people’s lives were changed by the technology evolving past candle light.  Whale oil made a huge difference.  I did some research on Amazon and found there are LED lanterns now, so I’m going to order one of them to be prepared for future blackouts.

I also wanted a radio or TV to listen to the news.  I have two Walkman cassette players with AM/FM/TV tuners, but the TV part doesn’t work anymore since they phased out analog signals.  And I couldn’t find any news on the AM/FM bands.  I didn’t have much patience though.  I plan to buy one of those emergency radios that have a crank to recharge the batteries and l want learn which radio stations are worth tuning before the next power outage.

Some of these emergency radios have hand cranks that will charge a phone or USB gadgets.  My cell phone ran out of power just after the storm.  This event taught me to keep my phone and gadgets well charged, keep the dishes washed up, and don’t let the dirty clothes pile up either. 

Luckily the house only got down to 60 degrees – just a touch cold.  I put on a hoody jacket and slept in my clothes under one patchwork quilt and was fine.  I have been in the house without power in the dead of winter and in August, so it could have been much worse.  But being addicted to a favorite temperature is a bad habit to have.

Most of all I was annoyed by having my routine disrupted.  That’s really being a pussy I know, but I’m a man who loves his rut.  If I owned an iPhone 4 instead of an iPod touch I think I would have felt connected to the net and felt less of a sense of net withdrawal.  The funny thing is I saw this PBS show last Friday about a family in England being forced to live with 1970s technology.  I never would have thought the 70s as the old days, but when I saw how different they had to live I realized how much life has changed just in my lifetime.

I tried to imagine what life was like for Jane Austen at the beginning of the 19th century, two hundred years ago.  No toilets, electricity, running water, central heat and air, safe foods, etc.  Dark was dark back then.  If I only had candles last night and none of my gadgets I would have been closer to Jane Austen times.  What the hell did they do in the evenings?

Just listening to the old time radio tapes reminded me of stories my mother and father told me about how they grew up.  Radio shows aren’t very sophisticated entertainment – and neither is television once you get used to the internet.  I think our modern minds have become addicted to complex stimulation.  Listening to the Philip Marlowe mystery was quaint but I’d hate to return to those simple story days.

Since I gave up cable last year my wife constantly searches the local channels for something to watch when she’s in town.  She likes to watch Antenna TV, a channel with old TV shows from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.  I loved The Monkees as a kid, but seeing it now makes me wonder if I was mentally handicapped as a teen.  I grew up back then but I wouldn’t want to return to such primitive entertainment.  I can’t imagine what young people today think of us when they see such shows.  But then I was talking to a young woman (in her thirties) and she told me how much she loved The Adams Family because it was something fun to watch with her 4 year old daughter.

Of course I did a lot of thinking about the poor people in Japan who are having their routine lives diverted for probably months if not years.  I was having no trouble adapting to life without power – it’s not life threatening, but I wouldn’t want to go all Thoreau and choose such a lifestyle.  I’m reading Edward Abbey’s Desert Solitaire and he makes living out in nature sound exciting and romantic, but reading between the lines I don’t think the desert heat comes through well in just words.

I also thought about what it would take to live with less, and wondered how much less is acceptable.  Could I live without the Internet?  Sure, but I really wouldn’t like it, but that’s weird to think about.  Why is the Internet so important?  I spend  Sunday afternoon to Friday evening living alone, so I use the Internet to socialize at night.  The computer, phone and TV make me feel in touch with the world and people.  If we fell back to Jane Austen times, work would be my only social contact and I’d probably read in the evenings.  I’m too tired after work to be socially active.  But if we didn’t have this modern world I don’t suppose my wife would be working out of town.

I wonder what our married lives should be like without our electronic addictions?  And yes, my wife has her addictions too, like Farmville and Angry Birds.  When Nicky was visiting we talked, and then we played cards.  I can see how simple games like chess, checkers and cards could be so valuable to people in the old days.

My first night back with electricity I’m typing my blog, listening to Miles Davis’ “So What” from Kind of Blue and enjoying unnatural light and heating.  I just got in the 5th season of Friday Night Lights, one of my all time favorite TV shows to watch later, and I’m back in my routine.  However, I’m not as inspired to write like I was last night.  See, being forced to do something different has it’s educational value.  Thinking about being out of my rut was stimulating in itself.  I should try to do it more often.  Yeah, right.

JWH – 4/6/11

The Good Book by David Plotz

The full title of David Plotz’s 2009 book is:  Good Book: The Bizarre, Hilarious, Disturbing, Marvelous, and Inspiring Things I Learned when I Read Every Single Word of the Bible.  Now anyone who regularly reads my blog knows I’m an atheist, so you must be asking, why the hell is Jim reading a book about the Bible?  Well, for the last few years I’ve taken a little time now and then to either read the Bible or read about it, and it’s very rewarding, but just not in a religious way.  You might even say it adds to my spiritual development, and I do feel like I have a spiritual side, it’s just atheistic.

good-book-image

However, to be more down to Earth, I have to say unequivocally:  to understand western history and literature requires studying the Bible.  Not only that, to understand the psychology of the modern religious person requires a thorough knowledge of the Bible.  Moreover, I think knowledge of the Bible shines a light on contemporary politics.

The Good Book by David Plotz is a quick, informal, but skeptical overview of the Old Testament.  Plotz is Jewish, but not a religious man, but I think he still wants to believe in God, and has some religious affinities, at least far more than I do.  Plotz just wanted to read the Bible to understand his cultural heritage and ended up blogging about it over at Slate in a series called Blogging the Bible.  Read some of his posts to get a feel for his style, or even read the entire series online if you don’t feel like buying the book.  The blog isn’t the book, and I recommend the book if you’re willing to buy it.  I listened to an audio book edition read by Plotz.  Think of the Good Book as a hip Cliff Notes summary of the Bible from a Jewish guy that has a light, if not humorous touch.

Most people have never read the Bible from start to finish.  It’s long, and has lots of boring bits, and despite what fundamentalists believe, is full of inconsistencies, contradictions and surprising unspiritual stories.  Plotz gives a Reader’s Digest overview that’s surprisingly entertaining.  And like most people who try to read the Bible from cover to cover, Plotz is shocked by what he finds.  Not to give away the ending, but Plotz concludes that value of the Bible is in coming to grips with its messy parts, of which there are many.

Plotz’s Good Book is an entertaining flyover of the Bible that doesn’t take sides.  He doesn’t go very deep, but just summarizes what he’s read and gives his personal reactions.  I was hoping to learn more about Judaism but Plotz doesn’t digress too deep into that territory either.  He’s familiar enough with Christianity and the New Testament to point out passages that foreshadow things to come but he doesn’t really explore how the Bible is different for the two religions.  This is not a deep book, but a case for Bible literacy.

Everyone who reads the Bible has their own interpretations, but I like studying the Bible as history, and Bart D. Ehrman is my main guru for this approach.  Religious people like to read the Bible for messages, but I like to read it as a historical and literary puzzle.  Now that’s a black hole as big as trying to understand Shakespeare, but it’s still fun.  For example, here’s a textual problem.  There are two accounts of creation in the Book of Genesis, and they don’t match up.  Plotz points that out but doesn’t question it too deeply, but I want to know why.

Wanting to know why makes you want to read more, and that’s why I like Ehrman.  I wished that Ehrman wrote books about the Old Testament too, because his series of books on the New Testament goes deeper and deeper.  Ehrman grew up as an Evangelical and attended the Moody Bible Institute seeking more knowledge.  He kept seeking and got his Ph.D. at Princeton Theological Seminary.  He’s a guy that’s on a quest to know the truth.  What he’s ended up researching is who wrote the various books of the New Testament and why.  And reading David Plotz’s book makes me want to know the same about the Old Testament.

For example here’s my untrained guess about the two descriptions of creations in Genesis.  Long ago stories weren’t written down but memorized and spoken.  Eventually some people took up writing, and the creation tales were written down at different times by different people, and by then the stories had diverge.  For some reason when the editors of the Bible found both they included them both.  The really should have edited the two into one story though, but they probably hated throwing anything away.

The thing about the Old Testament is it’s a collection of short stories, mixed in with some history, genealogy, directions for building a temple, dietary rules and commandments from God.  It’s a real hodgepodge of ancient documents thrown together that could have used a lot of editing.  The best parts of the Bible are the stories, and as Plotz points out, they aren’t exactly political correct stories either.  There is very little in the Old Testament about being spiritually good, and often the good guys are rather bad.  So what do we make of all this?

I tend to think the Old Testament wasn’t really about God all that much, but about building the first Jewish nation, so instead of Paul Bunyan we have David and instead of Sacagawea we have Esther.  And the reason why there are so many inconsistencies in the Bible is because it was written over centuries by who knows how many different authors.  The Old Testament doesn’t promise everlasting life, salvation, or heaven.  Your soul isn’t on the line like it is in the New Testament.  God doesn’t ask much other than obedience and doesn’t promise much other than safety from being blasted by his wrath.

One thing Plotz points out time and again is how often the stories have been sanitized for retelling  to children in Bible schools.   And many of the stories have an ax to grind, like the spin Fox News puts on its stories.   Many stories are political stories trying to make a point, and often they are rather heavy handed.  If you don’t feel like reading the whole Bible, I recommend reading this book, or one like it.  The Bible is not as mysterious as it seems.  It’s less about up there and a whole lot more about down here.

JWH – 3/29/11