In a recent correspondence with a favorite former professor (of drawing/painting), I mentioned that I thought there were some interesting connections between Native American thought and the American Transcendentalists, specifically regarding their ideas on nature. I can't get this email out of my head, so here it is. He responds:

"I read Custer Died for Your Sins a long time ago, in Germany, when I probably was too young. I recently re-read God Is Red, also by Deloria. I wonder if there’s anybody like him in the new generation of Indians. If so, I haven’t heard of him or her. I have lots of thoughts about this – in one way or the other, I think about this every day because it boils down to the question How To Live? It is mostly pretty depressing; I think that Europeans are intellectually and physically destined to ruin this planet (as a collective; individuals are a different matter but they don’t seem to make much of a difference). Whatever we Europeans come up with in terms of our relationship with nature, we always get it wrong. The Indians don’t (or at least didn’t before contact) not because they are the better humans – although it is tempting to argue that – but because their culture, i.e. their myths, creation stories, rituals, etc. defined the human-nature relationship in terms of interdependency, not domination. An example: In some creation stories humans are alone on a desolate planet and totally helpless until some animal (duck, beaver, turtle, coyote, etc.) helps them. This not only means that humans have to be forever grateful to these animals but also that some animals were on the planet before humans were created and it isn’t even clear who created these first animals. They are simply there, often as creators themselves (or vital participants in creation). That would be totally unacceptable to a European or, even more generally, to a monotheistic mindset because it removes humans from the top of the hierarchy. What we Europeans lack is a culturally ingrained empathy for nature and that’s why some pretty words from philosophers don’t make much of a difference, or worse, sound hypocritical. The most distressing thing to me is that monotheism, especially the Christian kind, is so dominant that it simply rolls over all these other belief systems because it is linked with human dominance (which leads to consumerism), and that’s the end of it all, anyway."

Trillion

Recently:

3. I played in a Texas Hold'em Tournament last weekend. I learned how to play poker forty-five minutes before-hand and then just jumped in there. (Applause) I won one hand betting on my suited ace and jack and that was just about enough poker for me. I did get a laugh out of the poker lingo: kicker, flop (these two remind me of fishing, an activity most of the tourney players probably looove). Little known fact about me: I have never been to a casino.
2. Work is a mix of very much fun (schmoozing and meeting local art patrons and administrators at VIP parties, planning parties, meeting artists) and waves of frustration (drowning in office work). I've been asked to go back to Northwest in the fall to give a presentation at an alumni colloquium on how I use my English skills in my career. (Applause)
1. I finally bought a new computer. (Applause) It's pretty. The search was long and filled with strife. I also met many a salesperson who thought that my desire for an aesthetically appealling computer was frivolous : "Well, for the money, this nice new LoadOfBricks 7000 is an excellent match for your needs..." Really I think the important thing is that I won. And all of the keys work.

Sincerely, The Oyster: The Origins of Pearl Ropes

a statement in response to mr. skinny

Readers looking to fulfill "fleshy" fantasies will indeed not be sated here. Long-time readers, bless their hearts, or at least those who would bother to read a few back-posts, would note that I used to work in the sweat-and-tears fine jewelry industry. This is just a little background info to inform the choice of title.

"Pearl Ropes" refers to a long strand of pearls. Now I'm talking a real strand of pearls, the kind that decorate jewelry store cases or ladies dressing tables - not some secret plastic toy of carnal desire (how you choose to use your grandma's inherited pearl necklace is, I suppose a matter of choice).

Now for the mini-lesson: pearls begin from a grit of sand or dirt - aka "irritant"- that gets washed inside the oyster's shell. The irritant is layered over time with a milky calcium coating. Layers upon layers. Did you know it literally takes years to make a pearl of a certain size?

This pearl-making process is a survival mechanism for the oyster, or at the very least it improves his or her quality of life. Since the little guy or gal has no means of ejecting the irritant, they layer it with calcium secretions so that the grit inside doesn't rub uncomfortably against their little oyster muscles (who's getting hot now?). The oyster methodically coats the irritant while it simultaneously spins it to acheive the smooth, round result. Once enough layers have built up around it, someone plucks this now pretty and valuable bio-grit from the shell. It is deemed a precious gem and sold to soprano-sounding ladies (myself included) to be worn about their necks.

I find the whole process to be an extremely poetic biological phenomenon. What whispers lovely and disgusting at the same time if not pearls? I am fascinated with pearls as a medium in jewelry as well as the layers of meaning derived from their process.

Still doesn't explain my blog, eh? Well, I chose a strand of pearls as a metaphor for the form of my blog. Each post is created from some subject that washes my way which I find interesting or irritating to a degree that warrants posting. The subject is something that I can turn over and over, hoping to calcify it with words into something pretty, whole in and of itself, and more beautiful than the sum of its parts. To hit you over the head, each post is a singular unique pearl, and the writing (creation) process is for me a necessary biological reflex, a process which improves my quality of life and makes sense of things I cannot eject. I also hope that the result is something to be enjoyed.

To take the formal connection further, each post/pearl is strung together with other posts/pearls - one at a time, over a period of time- to create a long strand, or "Rope" of posts. Anyone that has tried stringing beads will hopefully see the connection I am drawing with the top-to-bottom, one after the next form that most blogs display (blogs are long, literally, in visual length, much like the longness of a strand of pearls).

Finally, an actual strand of pearls exhibits formal qualities which I hope that my blog will take on. Even though each pearl is a unique creation, it was selected to be part of a strand for its ability to relate aesthetically with the other pearls on the strand (either for the point of homogeneity or for the point of a more creative design). I intend that there should be an aesthetic relationship (circling the sweetness, innocence, natural processes, prettiness, and femininity of pearls and pearl necklaces) among all of the posts of my blog, adding up to (again) a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

In short, "Pearl Ropes" is a title which uses the history of pearl-making and pearl-wearing to provide a formal construct for my blog.

So Mr. Skinny, thank you kindly for asking. And please tell your horny readership, with all due respect to each and all, to jack off to someone else's blog.