Thursday, February 16, 2012

Auckland: First Impressions

For ten days now I've been here in the City of Sails.

My welcome was a very pleasant one, as regards the physical attributes of the city. Brilliant blue skies, warm sun, and a refreshing breeze from the sea. What struck me first was that Auckland — or, at least, most of those parts of it I've been privileged to see so far — is a very beautiful city. Houses nestle in green hills rising from the harbour, while boats bob at anchor in the marina. Even the glass and steel of the central city lack the grunge of New York, and the city is full of green trees as it rises up into the hills from the water.

Another thing that struck me was the area in which my brother and his girlfriend live. This part of the city is somewhat cut off from the main metropolis, and is very relaxed and safe. I've seen children out unaccompanied except by each other, sitting in parks and reserves; couples and families walking along and playing at the beach. It seems a far cry from America, where in comparison people seemed busy, keeping to themselves and wary of strangers.

On the other hand, Auckland lacks a certain amount of unity. This requires some background, of course: Auckland is divided by its hills, and its waterways – the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours, and the Tamaki River – into little chunks. Moreover, until very recently it was not governed as a unified entity; a city council covering the whole of Auckland was set up only in 2010, before which the Auckland urban area was split between seven local authorities. And in an earlier time it was split up into far more. But unity is coming only slowly, and Auckland feels like a collection of towns and villages rather than a single unified city.

Auckland, finally, has a sense of pride and power. It feels a world apart from rural and provincial New Zealand, or even from Christchurch, long the country's second-largest city (though ranking lower in importance than Wellington). Auckland is the pulse of the nation, or perhaps its lungs: vitally important, the centre of commerce with the world outside, and one in three New Zealanders is now an Aucklander. It feels, in fact, a little like New York, though not on the same scale — if Auckland is the head, the rest of the country is the body. I may in the end want to be somewhere a little quieter and less brash.

For the moment, though, here is where I'm called to be. We'll see how it goes!

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Travels II

Today marks the end of my long journey, as this evening I set off for Auckland, arriving there late tonight.

From New York, I headed to Boston. Boston, though a Northern city, is very different from New York, or indeed anywhere else I'd been in the United States. It strikes me as a fairly snooty, academic place. Also it has a very European feel - it's possibly the most "European" of America's influential cities. Because of its university nature — it has more universities than you can shake a stick at — it tends to punch above its weight in influence, population-wise. It's also a relatively clean and quiet city, and its architecture, high roofs and narrow windows, is an obvious adaptation to its snowy northern clime (though it didn't actually snow that much while I was there).

Though I was sick while there, I was able to spend good time with D.R. and his wife E. D. was a high school friend of mine, and his parents and mine remained friends; he contacted me out of the blue after I had moved to the States. They're staff workers with Cru at one of Boston's many universities. I also caught up with V.T., a small group leader of mine from my Melbourne days, who is now studying at seminary. It was good to hear how their work and lives were, a little more than I'd heard from afar via their support letters.

From Boston, I caught the train to San Diego (Oceanside) via Chicago and Los Angeles. If one's training, I highly recommend sleeper cabins. They're more expensive, certainly, but it's three nights of good sleep, instead of three nights curled up on coach seats if you're lucky!

The journey started off with the forests of New England. Nothing overly remarkable there, except that the cold and snowy reaches of western New England and upstate New York stand in stark contrast to the warm subtropical forests of Florida. I could see the country as far as Albany, where we waited for two hours for a companion train from New York. By the time we left Albany it was thoroughly dark. Dinner on the train was pleasant enough that night. Company consisted of a sales executive and a retired librarian. I woke up in the morning as we were heading through either north-western Indiana or north-eastern Illinois, I'm not sure which; but in any case we soon found ourselves in industrial areas, then Chicago's suburbs, and arrived at Union Station.

It was a grey and dreary day in Chicago, but not as cold as I had feared. Chicago is of course known as the "Windy City", but the breeze was not formidable, and the temperature stayed above freezing point (if only marginally). A six-hour stopover gave me the opportunity to go to the bank and the post office, and I had a brief wander around the CBD. Chicago, unlike the eastern seaboard, is a very functional and utilitarian city, a place of glass and steel; it had the "overgrown country town" feel to it, like Christchurch, but much more so; and unlike Christchurch there was not as much effort to create a refined image: no cathedral in the heart of the city, no grassy squares (except the lake shore park). In a way, though, it seemed starkly honest; here, it proclaimed, is a city, a place to work and to live and to do business, and we won't pretend to be something we're not. After I had wandered through the city (finding it amusing that I went to the Willis Tower, what was once called the Sears Tower, in order to use their post office, since it was nearest to Union Station), I went down to the lake; Lake Michigan was grey as the sky and covered in ice. I could see the waterfront in Chicago being pretty enough on a sunny day, but there was little to do, so I headed back to the warmth of the station.

The trip from Chicago began with a gentle trip across Illinois. I'm not sure if it forms part of the Great Plains, seeing as it's east of the Mississippi. Nevertheless, it was clearly midwestern: flat country, barns and cornfields prevailed outside of the greater Chicago area, as we headed through numerous small towns. Between the northerly latitude, the time of year and the grey day, darkness drew in swiftly; after a few hours, we crossed the Mississippi into Fort Madison in Iowa, recognisable chiefly by the lights glinting in the water.

That evening, I met the two girls who would enliven the trip: N.M. and R.S. Delightful though quirky, they were en route to a town near San Deigo: N. to move in with her husband who works in the Navy, and R. to help her. We chatted, played cards, watched movies, and explored the Albuquerque station (well, not that there's much to explore there). They once again proved my general theory that it's people that make life fun. In some distant day, I may see them again; whatever the case, we've friended on Facebook, as befits children of this age.

Finally, I went to San Diego, where I caught up with O.S.Q.T. and F.M.M., two friends from my Melbourne days: O. from Ridley, and F. from VCP. We compared notes on American culture and what it was like living and working there as Antipodeans. O. is going back to Melbourne for work, and F. hopes to do something similar in due course. It was good to see them again.

Having had a cold, I proved my absent-mindedness. At a pharmacy, I bought some cough suppressant, and some decongestant — real pseudo-ephedrine, not that phenylephrine nonsense they try to palm off on people these days. And I went and left it at F.'s place. By God's mercy, my head wasn't stoved in by pressure changes.

Transiting through Auckland after an uneventful trip, I found myself safe and well in Christchurch, where I spent nearly a week. These few days have been amazing, and will have far-reaching consequences. In many ways, one chapter of life has ended, and another exciting one is beginning.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Travels

As I write this, I'm on the bus passing through snowy Connecticut. At least, I think I'm in Connecticut, and the Maps app on my iPhone assures me that this is so. While I type on my MacBook Pro. My claim to not be an Apple fanboy starts to ring a little hollow.

I left Gainesville for what may be the last time, this Saturday morning just past. I think I left well; my two chief regrets are that I couldn't finish off some bits and pieces of scientific work (paper writing, mostly — story of my life), and that I left something of a mess in the apartment, which J.M.S., my erstwhile flatmate, will now have to sort out. Whoops. I was encouraged by my friends who turned out in numbers to see me off, though. Special thanks to J.M. and his wife K., who offered the use of their house and helped me to organise my going-away party, and also to C.V., who offered his house when the M.'s house fell through.

It's relationships (considered broadly) that have been the best part of my time here, so, I thought, what better way to spend my last week in the US than travelling around and seeing people in different cities? My first stop was New York, where I stayed with K.J., whom I had first met back in Australia. She's amazing; I thoroughly enjoyed the time catching up with her =]

New York is a city like no other. I find it interesting because it's perhaps the most stereotypically American city, yet one of the least typically American. The things that blow me away the most about it are its scale, its density and its beat of life. It's a world away from the sleepy village outside Christchurch where I grew up. People are packed in almost cheek by jowl. The cost of living is prodigious. And the life there is frenetic. It is a city well adapted to the young professional, with a fast pace, high wages and expensive entertainment. It's a wonder to visit, but I don't think I would wish to live there long.

Be that as it may, I had fun not only spending time with K., but also going to places like the Top of the Rock and two of the city's museums. I wish I could have had more time to spend. I may have opportunities later, though; that's the great thing about being young.

Blog redivivus!

Yes, I've decided to take up blogging again.

I've now quit my job in America, and am on my way back to New Zealand. There, I'll probably have another blog, more devoted to technical matters. This blog will, at least in theory, remain in existence for my personal reflections on, as Douglas Adams put it, life, the Universe and everything.

Read on!

I will also do a shameless (and completely uninvited) plug. My sister blogs at Triceratops Wins. Her views and interests are quite different to mine, but I consider her an entertaining writer nonetheless. So if you want to hear more from our humble corner of the gene pool, check it out. Enjoy!

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Closing time

Yep. I've decided to park this blog, possibly permanently.

The great bloggers manage to reach a wide audience by updating regularly, with timely, well-researched and well-written pieces. I don't seem to be able to do that, and if I were to try it could only come at the cost of more legitimate priorities.

Also, I keep having a vague sense that anything even remotely controversial I post could be used against me. I'm not sure how many of my readers know who I am in real life, but if I'm to risk myself in public (and blogging is surely public), it better be for an important reason.

Thus the deep-freeze. I may, instead, post the occasional Note on Facebook in lieu of maintaining this blog.

If I have had any readers, then farewell, and may your journeys around the Internet be rewarding ones!

Monday, January 3, 2011

Concerning marriage (and why discussions with friends can be dangerous)

The other day, I found myself in a discussion with a friend about the nature of marriage and the proper role of the state in regulating it. A bit of light banter on New Year's Eve, ha! We came, of course, from quite different viewpoints, he holding something of a libertarian view. And if it had been a debate, I don't think I would have won it. But since we were capable of having the discussion without losing our tempers, he gave me some things to think about. Now, it seems right to put my thoughts in a blog post.

I'll start by setting forth what I think the ideal marriage is. I won't offer a word-for-word definition, but rather set forth what, based on Scripture, I consider to be its four defining features. These are: (1) A uniting of persons, expressed through sex and other ways; (2) taking place between a man and a woman; (3) exclusive; and (4) permanent.

The main point of contention was to what extent, if any, this view of marriage should be considered the most appropriate. And even if we decide it is the best – that is, the most suited to promoting healthy relationships between people, perhaps especially the spouses and any children – to what extent should it be enforced by Government action?

At one level, I have considerable sympathy for one of my friend's arguments. He said that people change, or reveal aspects of themselves after marriage that had previously been hidden; and that if the change or the new information could have been foreseen beforehand, the marriage would never have taken place. Should we require a wife to stay with an abusive monster of a husband because the magic words, “I do,” were uttered? And even at a less extreme level, it's hard to see it as anything but cruel to force spouses who dislike and distrust each other to stay together just to escape, say, a fine or jail term. It certainly doesn't promote human flourishing or healthy relationships.

And it is, presumably, because of these unfortunate but very real scenarios that the permanence of marriage has been its characteristic most open to redefinition. Even in the Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testaments envisage the termination of marriage. The Old Testament permits a regulated form of divorce; in the New, Jesus permits divorce from an adulterous spouse, and Paul discusses the possibility of abandonment. Nevertheless, the implication is that these outcomes should be considered exceptional, and that the typical marriage should last until one or other spouse dies.

And it would be fair to say that, if the state is to promote any view of marriage, I would like it to promote such a view, since that's the view I agree with. I contend that, by allowing for no-fault divorce, the state is promoting as superior a form of “marriage” that has lost the defining feature of permanence.

So what do I think the solution is? I'm not really in favour of the state re-imposing Christian-style marriages as the expectation for everyone. Why? Because a lot of people reject the premises on which they should submit to such arrangements, really. And if I don't want to be forced to live according to another religion's values, I shouldn't try to force people in turn. Sauce for the goose, after all.

In which case, if I'm to be logically consistent, the only real option is for the Government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Let churches and other religious bodies regulate marriage among their members and among those who approach them for marriage, and let the Government restrict itself to enforcement of wills, contracts and laws against deception and abuse. A workable solution?

(A side topic arose, whether I think adultery should be punishable by law. The short answer is that I don't know. But I do believe there is a general moral obligation to avoid tempting others to break their word, and I have no objection to that obligation being legal as well as moral. The law would seem to agree with me, as there is the civil wrong of tortious interference. If that's true of mundane contracts, how much more so when something as significant as marriage is involved?)

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Nihil utile quod non honestum

This, the motto of the Christchurch Press, translates as, "Nothing is useful that is not honest."

And today at church, the sermon was based on this text:

James 5:12 Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.

While the pastor mentioned swearing in passing, his main thrust was on the importance of honesty. Without trying to reproduce the whole sermon (which can, in course of time, be found at the church's website anyway), these are some thoughts that I pondered.

Don't ask any question to which you can't bear to hear an honest answer. Such questions are completely pointless.

Recognise that there are broader classes of dishonesty - that is, misleading speech - than actual lies. Exaggerations (unless done as known hyperbole) are lies. But other forms include the "technically true statement" and "economy with the truth".

Recognise when you're practising evasive manoeuvres. And know why. Is it really because you think the truth would be unhelpful or unedifying to your hearers - or is it because them knowing the truth would be harmful to what you see as your interests?

A close-out point is the answer to the question, "How are you?" We know how people often give an answer like, "Good", "Fine", "Not too bad", etc. But what are some alternatives? Say the day's going badly, but for some reason you don't want to tell the other person how or why, or you don't want them to feel bad about it?

* Life's an adventure
* I won't complain
* The day/week/etc.'s had its challenges, but that's OK
* Things could be (a lot) worse

What do readers think?