Chalk up yesterday as another day lost to "stuff that feels
a lot like migraine except for not being excruciating so I keep
thinking I shouldn't take drugs for it but I still can't get
anything done", and today to side effects of the drugs I finally
gave in and took which should make me a lot more functional
later.
At Pennsic,
keith_m043 was gently pushing me to
test my blood sugar. I'm guessing (and if I'm wrong
I expect he'll correct me and if I decide it actually matters
I'll ask directly) that this was partly because of his own
increased awareness of the risk and dangers of diabetes, and
the fact that I've gained a lot of weight over the past decade
and some of my fibromyalgia symptoms can mimic or hide other
conditions, but I have noticed eating-related issues on my own
that are probably worth checking into at some point. Though
my getting a blood sugar reading of 150 (units? We don' need
no steekin' units! Though I guess I should ask Google what
the conventional units are...) after eating an unhealthy quantity
of fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies (have I mentioned that
Pennsic really isn't very much like camping?) and a probably-healthy
quantity of grapes just before leaving site seems to indicate
that I'm probably not already diabetic, I have noticed that for
the past ... uh ... year I guess, I've been hit especially hard by
postprandial depression. (For anyone unfamiliar with the phrase,
it refers to metabolic depression -- sluggishness,
"want to curl up on a sunny rock and nap", drowsiness -- after
eating, not mood.) Not sure what that suggests. Haven't asked
a doctor or the web about it yet. Too sleepy when I think of it.
Like now. Sleepy.
As I was preparing lunch, I found myself thinking two questions:
"Why did God make nightshades so yummy?" and, "Why did evolution
make nightshades so yummy?" But because I'd recently been reading
a really long discussion on AlterNet (are there any other kind
there?) about science versus politically-inspired-religious-pseudoscience,
which of course included a lot of people getting evolution wrong in
both subtle and unsubtle ways (on both sides, dammit), I immetiately
had to rephrase the second question, "What is it (if anything) about
the things that make the edible nightshades so yummy that conveys some
advantage to the plants so that environmental selection for that
property is unsurprising?" (Though now that I think more on it, that
needs the companion question, "What (if anything) about nightshades
makes it unsurprising that humans would evolve to like the taste of
them?" It could all just be a huge accident that never got selected
against, of course, but I fid myself wondering whether it's not.
The first question is, in many ways, more fun ... but the scientific
questions are in most ways more interesting. I find both
questions meaningful, but hey, I have unscientific religious beliefs.
(Consider: the only scientific religious belief has to be agnosticism,
because science's answer to the question of the existence of God is,
"That's not a scientific question, so science does not have an answer
for it." Atheism is as unscientific as theism. Militant
agnosticism ("I don't know and you don't either") is arrogant when
it assumes that science is the only tool for exploring truth; properly
the scientific answer is simply, "science doesn't know and doesn't
attempt to find out, ask me when I'm not wearing my lab coat and
feel like giving you a non-scientific answer".) There's what I know
as an armchair scientist, and there's what I know as an armchair
theologian and as someone with personal subjective experience of the
divine, and my belief in God is not counter-scientific
or anti-scientific, merely non-scientific. It's
only when we make claims that science can disprove, or claim to have
scientifically proved the existence (or nonexistence) of God that
religion gets into trouble with science.
(One of my philosophy professors in college was convinced that
he had formally proved the existence of God. I wished he'd run
his proof past the math department. I think it was the same
prof who thought he'd mathematically proved that there had to have
been a "first moment of time", whose proof of that was mathematically
flawed, but wouldn't believe a mere undergrad (math major) correcting
him on a mathematical concept. Cool guy and very good to learn
philosophy from in general, but the math thing bugged me. (Not saying
one way or 'tother about whether that conjecture can be proved, but the
way he'd tried to do it relied on a very different understanding of
the number line than mathematicians have.))
But I digress. My first trip to Florida convinced me that oranges
are evidence that God loves us ("Look! Single-serving bags of orange
juice! And they grow on trees! Isn't that convenient? And God made
these for us!"). I must give thanks for the evolution of potatoes
and chili peppers. (Okay, human-directed breeding gave rise to various
specific breeds and tweaked the yum-factor, but there was an ur-potato
and ur-pepper from which current varieties descended, and somone had to
stumble across them (along with tomatoes and eggplant) and realize
they'd found something worth cultivating.)
Hmm. Babbling, topic drift, too many parentheses, awkward sentence
structure, tangents, no sense of where any particular thought is going
... oh yeah, it's definitely naptime. Wonder whether this will look
at all salvageable by editing once I wake up again.