anna discovers rudimentary paint

i have been sick for the past three days, and this is what i have been doing. the good news is that, as you can see, i am going places in my life

solitary travel

so dear justin is so gifted in traveling, so directionally privileged, that when we go out i almost always let him do the leading. he knows what trains, buses, times, and places to go--the man can get you anywhere. it's wonderful. however this talent of his has led my own far less considerable talent for self-direction to atrophy. what bus? i 'unno. where'm i goin? ask that guy.

however, i have a lot more time on my hands than he does lately, so i've had to venture out on my own a little bit. so here are some photos of two of my solitary korea adventures.


this little dude lives outside the gate to Hwaseong Fortress, a neato old-timey medieval Korean style castle and gate in my town (my town? is it?). i THINK it's a guard dog (they used dogs for two things: guarding, and eating...more on this in the next photo blog), but it may also be a lion. hard to tell he's so weatherblown. a lot of the fortress has been rebuilt since the japanese trashed it early last century, but this little fella is original.


big looming gate to get in. a little intimidating, right?


these guys live on roofs of special buildings. i think they're also guardian figures, but i can't make out what they are. to quote my favorite clueless king, "i know not what that meaneth."


god bless korea. just look at these guys.


here's more old folks, playing some chinese checkers (or somethin') outside the fortress wall. that is a big ol' wall.


this is the front end of a little train that passed me by chock full of little kiddies, probably there on some history field trip or something. they all waved and shouted "hello!" a lot of kids here do that with foreigners. i personally love it. i wonder if the russians resent that everyone assumes they speak english? its hilarious the things kids shout. in mexico a little neighbor boy would always shout "one two three four five!" at us from inside his house when we would walk by.


this photo is from another trip i took by bus down to a little city called bundang, to meet my NBF, kate (that's 'new best friend' if anyone was wondering.) and this, my friends, was a beautiful little bakery.


traveling is confusing and tired-making.

gobbledigook palace

this palace is actually called changdeokgung, but man i can't remember that! i had to go get the pamphlet so i could write it down just now.

nature vs. chaos

thinky time again. dont worry, fun photo blog coming soon.

there is a debate in ecology, and im sure other disciplines as well, over whether the universe is governed by harmony or chaos. we have this old idea that if nature is just left alone, it will fall into a sort of balanced state, where creatures eat each other and reproduce in harmony (thanks rousseau). humans are sort of a wild card in this--perspectives differ on whether humans ONCE belonged in nature and lived in harmony, but have since lost that ability for one reason or another. or humans are simply regarded as a sort of fly in the ointment altogether, screwing up whatever we touch.

the other perspective is the idea of chaos. that nature and the universe have always been ruled by cataclysm and unpredictability--huge disasters have happened to the earth (and the rest of the universe) time and time again, and there is no reason to expect that they would stop.

the first perspective is nice because hey, it gives us hope. if only we could a) return to our lost eden (eden itself, the medieval period, the americas before white folks arrived, whatever) or b) establish the perfect society finally (via science, philosophy, religion, pish posh). whatever it is, perfection and harmony can exist and we can reach it, if we can only find the path! something to strive for.

the downsides of this of course are that every disaster engenders what, guilt and existential crisis? old timers thought every earthquake or famine was a punishment from god. new timers find pollution and massive extinction to be a moral issue as well (i tend to agree most of the time). however both believed that if ONLY humans could be better somehow, achieve that harmony/righteousness that is just floating out of reach, things would improve. but we haven't, we are rotten and awful and now we are suffering. why god, why? bring on the despair.

chaos theory (using that term VERY loosely) on the other hand absolves you of responsibility, which can be kind of nice. so what, people are causing the 6th great extinction? well, there were five others and guess what, nobody blames the ASTEROID. geez. and life went on. there is a kind of arrogance in trying to control everything, in assuming we can make life what we want it to be if only we try. of course the downsides to this are obvious, they're the same as the upsides. lack of responsibility? well, this burrito is delicious but it is filling. chuck.

i dont know of course. i am wondering if maybe the universe is chaotic but balanced within a much larger sense, eg yeah an asteroid can kill 4/5 of all the life on earth, but can't we accept destruction and death into our concept of balance? and can't we accept our individual responsibility to fix things without being overwhelmed by the possibility that it might not work? generally i think no, not us westerners. but it would probably be a good idea.

and done.

my true calling

i finally found it!

rights vs. grace

so i've been thinking a lot about just what the hell we're supposed to be doing here on this planet before we die. this is an important question--every few months or so i have this weird run-in with the knowledge that i'm going to die some time. me and the idea sort of circle, and box, and then it fades away and i go back to doing whatever i was doing. but facing death is also facing life, and the question "just what are you going to do" looms large.

so i have been thinking of what people have thought was important to do with your life. i especially like to think about the medieval period and the modern period. and in this context, the question "just what are you going to do with what you have" becomes modified into "just what do i have?"

in the modern period, life is governed by the idea of rights. every human being ostensibly has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. there are other rights in the american constitution: free speech, privacy, bear arms, etc. we have this idea that every human SHOULD have these things, DESERVES these things, and if they do not have these things, there is a real problem.

advantages to rights: spreading of wealth, democracy, the common man's opinon matters (or at least appears to matter). reduction in physical suffering, disease, starvation. rights for women and racial minorities is a big, important one. lots of good stuff.

disadvantages to rights: but is it workable? really? CAN everyone in the world live a long, healthy life, free speech, bear arms, enough food, decent housing, etc? the current envirionmental crisis seems to say 'no.' but this is the ideal of a rights-based system, a world where everyone has at least an equally good opportunity to obtain the things they need. but honestly, if everyone lived and consumed and polluted like americans (and all of this strictly within their rights), the world would probably explode tomorrow.

dont get me wrong. i dont want to rip on rights! im a lady, and i love voting. i love eating enough. i love the idea that this powerful dude can't stomp on all of these poor people just for fun (although actually that still happens pretty frequently...). but in the past year i've been thinking a lot about nature and conservation, and im doubting whether the democratic ideal is either possible or desirable, ultimately.

see because nature runs on sacrifice. things EAT other things. they have to. some things die so other things can live--there is no escaping it. i used to think plants had it figured out, cause they just eat good old sunlight, but no, they push and strangle each other out of the way to get to it. if humans are a part of nature (as indeed we are), why do we think we can escape this rule?

which brings me to the idea of grace. in medieval times, the idea was that everything, EVERYTHING people had was a gift. there are scriptures in the bible (a fairly important text to those folk) that dictate that god grants humans every single breath. this seems to imply that if god ceased to provide my next breath and i died choking, i would have nothing to really complain about, since i wasn't entitled to any of the others either. i should just be grateful for what i have received up to this moment.

advantages of this perspective: every moment probably seems like a miracle. there is no existential despair about suffering in the world, envy or covetousness (im sure people were envious, but just in a greedy way, not in a victimized, despairing "omg everyone has life liberty and happiness, why don't i?" way). and when suffering does come your way, it is probably easier to deal with cause hey, you had no reason to expect NOT to suffer.

disadvantages: complacency ('that guy's poor? well god made him poor so im not feedin him'). basically the big problem with this perspective is the acceptance of suffering to the degree that no one does anything about it, which was the big problem in the middle ages. (plagues? marauding kings? eh. god's will.)

i guess ill do the aristotle and take the middle road? i dont think people everywhere are entitled to every comfort, although i wish we were. as difficult as it is to accept, life runs on sacrifice. something had to suffer and die so that i could eat lunch and stay alive. maybe tomorrow i will suffer and die so that something else can eat me (this is all very lion king isn't it, only 'the circle of life' isn't so nice and fluffy). but on the other hand this knowledge doesn't excuse me from doing everything i can to help relieve suffering around me, and the suffering i can't relieve, i can at least respect--pray over my food, be grateful for my sweat-shop made t-shirt, try to think about the little kids that sewed it.

but even on the middle road the answer isn't easy. if i conclude that everything in life is a gift, and its not a crime for me to petition for more, but i still feel that i ought to do what i can to help others, what constitutes 'what i can'? mother teresa gave up EVERYTHING, man. EVERYTHING. to go relieve sick people in a foreign country for her WHOLE LIFE. hypothetically i could do that, although i really, really dont want to. or is it ok to kick back and enjoy the gifts of 'grace'? the food i can buy with my easy money, my comfy bed. jesus turned water into wine for the party at cana right? of course then he spent the next three years among the dregs of society, healing and blessing. just how much is required of me? why do i have the sickening feeling that the answer is "all of it"?

all done.

ps sorry all my heroes here are christians, buddha gave everything up too, and mohammed sure paid some prices to do what he thought was right. its not a christian thing, its a humans and god and nature thing.

for a while

big stories, big stories.

the big news: justin and i are coming home early. we told our boss last monday that it was time for us to go home. we were motivated to do this because we thought i was pregnant. i've since found out that i'm not, but we will still be coming home.

since making this decision, i have come to appreciate korea more, somehow. maybe because im going to leave it sooner than i thought, but i think it's because im no longer trying to force myself to live here. it was pretty lonely trying to "live" in a place where you can't make more than rudimentary connections with others. the ex-pat community here is nice, and we have already made some friends that we will certainly miss. but i need a more contextual, nuanced life. i think the most significant thing that has occurred on this trip is that i have learned this about myself.

it was a nice, long weekend. it was a korean holiday, chuseok, so we had some days off work, and i think we spent them well. we spent one day in justin's old stomping grounds, bundang. it's a pretty fancy pants place, lots of starbucks and $90 discount shoe stands. i was impressed that korea's inner-city rivers are still clean enough to have cranes in them.

on friday we met up with a couple who we are almost POSITIVE are our anti-matter opposites. we were afraid to touch, lest we disappear forever. kate and sam, our new friends. they spent their honeymoon hitching peru, whereas we were in thailand. anyway, the four of us went hiking all over namhansamseong, the local sacred buddhist mountain, and it was very nice.

saturday we spent indoors, as it was the big holiday and everything, absolutely everything, was closed.

sunday we got out of town, and went to some buddhist temples up in the mountains. an old monk was singing an old song, and a lady shared some of her chuseok goodies with us. these consisted of a pine-flavored glutinous rice snack with beans in it, a kind of sweet rice drink (hopefully not fermented?), and a chestnut. My chestnut had a little maggot in it, but i managed to not flip out.

and then today we went to the ocean. the little ocean between korea and china. the tide was out, and there were lots of people out there gathering mussels and clams and who knows what. justin and i thought about getting some sea food, but we would have just ended up with a big plate of slimy something and not known what to do with it. so we enjoyed some cherry cokes on the wooden beach steps and then hopped on the bus back home.

so here i be, home again home again. another two months in korea, and a big ol' cliff of the unknown ahead.