Thursday, September 8, 2011

My Switch in Personalities


Ink on Paper then manipulated on my computer.
A new technique for me.
I seem to have two sides to me, the right and the left, often referred to the left and right brain.  I think I'm equally right and left brained, but, on two different scales: on a larger scale, the life experience scale, I fluctuate between the two.  For a couple of years, all I can think about is art and I paint and do little artistic projects.  I cancel my subscription to "The Economist," and subscribe to "Cloth Paper and Scissors," instead.  If you visit my blog "Old Woman on a Bicycle," for the past year it's been mostly about art and visiting art exhibits and making videos.  I belong to all the big art museums in town.   However, I haven't written on this blog for over a month, because my mind is shifting again.  I just subscribed to "The Economist" again, and I will probably start writing about politics and history.  I was making a video about one or two a week and now I haven't made one in over a month (see me on YouTube).  Undoubtedly, I will undergo another mental shift back to the art scene, which I've presently lost all interest in.  The last time that I was in one of my artistic periods and then left it, I had no idea I would be interested in doing art again, so I threw a lot of stuff away that I was really sorry about when I re-entered this phase about a year later.  I'm not really good enough at it, to be a professional, but each time that I enter one of these phases, I'm better at it than I was before, and I try to accomplish something before I lose interest again, which now I'm sure I will.  My measure of success in the art world is getting something published.  Getting published is my measuring stick for success no matter what phase I'm living in.  The only question has been, how long do I have before another radical change in interest,  and I go back to reading "The Economist" as though it were the Bible.  By the way, in both phases of my personality, I always read the Bible and the same religious material that I like, like Dietrich Bonhoffer and some Buddhist writing.  My religious interests remain a constant.  I should add that each time I switch back into the other phase, I'm better at what I'm doing than I was before.  Constant emotional and mental growth is a constant in my life.  When I'm in my artistic phase, I don't do much reading, and when I'm in my "left-brained phase" I do.  I actually feel happier in the left-brained phase.  I am very intellectual, and when I'm in the right-brained, or artistic phase, I feel that a part of my brain isn't being exercised significantly.  However, I get some enjoyment in seeing what progress I'm making in my art work.

By the way, besides "Old Woman on a Bicycle" I have another blog called "One American Mind," which is primarily devoted to the left side of my personality, which is the history/political/philosophical side.  I judge which site to post on as to which interest I think it falls into.  If I'm thinking about Obama or Michelle Bachmann, I'll write something on "One American Mind."  My blog "One American Mind" gets twice as many hits as "Old Woman on a Bicycle," but I've also had "One American Mind" for a much longer period of time.

What I really like the most is combining these two sides of my personality into one project.  I've written a novel enititled "That Smooth-Faced Gentleman"  which I published myself.  One reason I liked publishing it myself (which was a mistake) was that I could design the entire book.  I photo I took is on the cover.  I would really hate to have a book published with someone else's art work on the cover, but perhaps I wouldn't mind if it were much better than I could do.  Here's a piece of irony.  The title of my book, which I wrote 10 years ago, is a quote from Shakespeare's play "King John."  I just found out on Ancestry.com that the real King John was an ancestor of mine.






Saturday, September 3, 2011

My Ironic Family History

The following thoughts followed spending last month, probably averaging 6 hours a day, on Ancestry.com.

My family consists of three main branches that I was familiar with up until a couple of months ago when I learned about another one.  The three branches I was familiar with were

The Alstroms - My fathers side of the family, which, since my parents were divorced when I was very young, I knew very little about.  Also my father hated his parents, who had never kept it a secret from him that he had been an unwanted child, and never spoke about them during the times when he would come to visit me.  The only item he ever mentioned about his father was that he owned a beach house in Rehobeth Beach, Deleware, which he told me I would inherit some day and that I should be prepared to accept that much responsibility.  I presume he mean't after he inherited it.  (This never happened).  I learned from my mother that my paternal grandfather was a drunk and that my paternal grandmother's name was Mabel.  My father and grandfather were also of Swedish descent.  I learned on Ancestry.com that my Father's paternal grandfather, Andrew Gustavis Alstrom was born in Skaroberg, Sweden and came to America, at the age of 20, in 1868, settling in Frankfort Kantucky,  After marrying, he soon moved to Baltimore, Md., which became their permanent home and the birthplace of my father.  I figure he probably moved to Maryland because it has a large Swedish community.

My grandfather and grandmother, Mr. and Mrs. John Thomas Alstrom, Sr., visited me only once when I was about ten years old.  I lived with my maternal grandmother in a small apartment in West Los Angeles, and they stopped by for a visit and to meet me.  Right after they left, I said to my grandmother, "I'm glad they're gone, now I can go out and play."  They overheard me as they were walking down the stairs from our apartment and wrote a letter to my grandmother about it.  I learned on Ancestry.com that he died a year or two after that one meeting.

There's other stuff about this side of my family, I'm finding out on Ancestry.com, but I won't go into all that now, because I don't want this entry to be book.

The Mannings of Wichita, Kansas and the Johnsons of Sulphur Springs, Texas

My mother's (Frances Louise Alstrom, nee Johnson,) mother, my grandmother Johnson, was a Manning, from Wichita, Kansas, before marrying her husband Raleigh Homer Johnson, a railway postal clerk, from Sulphur Springs, Texas.  I always got the feeling that, not only Grandmother, but also her family, thought she married below her.  The Johnson family in Sulphur Springs, Texas were farmers and very poor, not that the Mannings of Wichita were particularly educated.  Both family members never graduated high school.  However, the Mannings did seem to make something of themselves in the world.  My great uncle, Phillip Manning, at 16 dropped out of school to work in a grocery story.  At 21 he bought the grocery store.  The grocery story grew into a supermarket, and he became mayor of Wichita (1946-47).  My grandmother Johnson, who also dropped out of high school, later went to a business college and then taught secretarial skills at the college.  She and my mother and then myself were all very competent secretaries.  That's how I learned my extensive computer skills, which seems to be rare for seniors like myself.

My grandmother and grandfather Johnson had a very unhappy marriage and later divorced.  My mother and grandmother always called my grandfather Raleigh, and I only just learned that his family always called him Homer, which was actually his middle name.  They obviously didn't think much of the name Homer.  I know my mother thought farmers were the lowest people on earth.  She always called people farmers whom she thought were the worst.  My mother was also always ashamed about being from Wichita, Kansas.  I think my father didn't help in that regard either.  He considered his family from Maryland far superior, and Maryland a much better and more prestigious place to be from.  I think he thought he married down, too.  I don't think he ever met the Johnson's or ever wanted to, and hadn't much to do with the Mannings.

The Lawrences originally from Kentucky but moved to Sulphur Springs, Texas

I only recently learned that the Johnson family, our Texas branch, had their own branch, the Lawrences.  My  great-grandmother on my Johnson side had the maiden name of Lawrence, whom I got the impression the Johnson family thought superior to themselves.  I don't know if these two families, other than Elizabeth Jane, my great-grandmother had much to do with one another.

I'm coming to the great irony.  Keep patient.

My mother once told me that she had never investigated the Johnson family heritage because she was scared that maybe there had been Negros in it, because so many "colored people" had the last name of Johnson.  My mother was terrified that maybe she had Negro blood in her.

On Ancestry.com, I did extensive research on the Johnson family, which out of her racial prejudice my mother was too fearful to do.  I learned that the Johnson's ancestors were the Plantagenet family of England and that my 18 great-grandfather was King Edward III of England.  King Edward III was the king just before Richard the Second.  Before this all the Johnson ancestory were English and French royalty.  William the Conqueror was my 26th great-grandfather.  I've relayed this information to my Johnson cousin who is now 86, but I don't think she could care less.  How the future generations from English royalty ended up as Texas farmers must be some story.

Below is my family tree on my mother's father's side, from William the Conqueror, but it still goes back much further than that--to the Vikings.
(Information from Ancestry.com)

William I
[aka William the Conqueror]
William I Conqueror (1024 - 1087) is my 26th great grandfather

Henry I Beauclerc (1068 - 1135)
Son of William I
Empress Matilda Countess of Anjou England (1102 - 1167)
Daughter of Henry I
Henry II, Curtmantle, King of England, Plantagenet (1133 - 1189)
Son of Empress Matilda Countess of
John "Lackland" King of England Plantagenet (1166 - 1216)
Son of Henry II, Curtmantle, King of England,
HENRY III King of England PLANTAGENET (1207 - 1272)
Son of John "Lackland" King of England
King Edward I of England Edward Plantagenet (1239 - 1307)
Son of HENRY III King of England
Empress Matilda
Countess of Anjou England
 
King Edward II Plantagenet (1284 - 1327)
Son of King Edward I of England Edward
Edward III "King of England" Plantagenet (1312 - 1377)
Son of King Edward II
John Beauford of Gaunt, Duke of Aquitaine, "1st Duke of Lancaster" King of Castile Plantagenet (1340 - 1399)
Son of Edward III "King of England"
Joan Plantagenet Lady Countess Westmoreland Beaufort (1375 - 1445)
Daughter of John Beauford of Gaunt, Duke of Aquitaine, "1st Duke of Lancaster" King of Castile
Richard Knight of the Garter 5th Earl of Salisbury Neville (1400 - 1460)
Son of Joan Plantagenet Lady Countess Westmoreland
George (Archbishop of York and Chancellor of England) Neville (1432 - 1476)
Son of Richard Knight of the Garter 5th Earl of Salisbury
Alice Neville (1445 - 1498)
Daughter of George (Archbishop of York and Chancellor of England)
Brian Tunstall (1480 - 1513)
Son of Alice
Brian de Tunstall (1510 - 1539)
Son of Brian
Richard Tunstall (1539 - 1586)
Son of Brian de
Edmund Tunstall (1585 - 1635)
Son of Richard
Edmund Tunstall or Turnstall (1628 - 1694)
Son of Edmund
Marshall Tunstall (1673 - 1699)
Son of Edmund
Jane Tunstall (1700 - 1751)
Daughter of Marshall
Roger Quarles II (1720 - 1790)
Son of Jane
Harrison "Hal" Johnson
My great grandfather
John Quarles (1746 - 1789)
Son of Roger
Lucy Quarles (1786 - 1854)
Daughter of John
Moses J. Johnson Jr. (1832 - 1900)
Son of Lucy
Harrison "Hal" C. Johnson (1854 - 1922)
Son of Moses J.
[my great grandfather]
Raleigh Homer Johnson (1885 - 1952)
Son of Harrison "Hal" C.
[my grandfather]
Frances Louise Johnson (1919 - 1983)
Daughter of Raleigh Homer
Raleigh Homer Johnson
My maternal grandfather
Gayle Manning Alstrom
That's me.













Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Secular Mind vs. Religious Mind

Before there was such a thing known as blogging, I kept an on-line personal journal.  Every few months I would print out my personal journal and keep it in a binder. Now, on my other blogs, which aren't really all that personal, I only print out the posts that get lots of hits to save.  I'm accepting public opinion as to the quality of my work, which I don't know is entirely correct to do or not.

William James
 I just read something in my journal from 2001 that I think applies to the current political climate in the USA.  William James in his essay "The Will to Believe," said  "As a rule we disbelieve all facts and theories for which we have no use."  To me that describes the political climate in the USA at the moment, and especially the mind set of the right-wing Republicans, which is almost all of them.  Even though that may be human nature, I think at certain historical times, it's more emphasized than at other times,  both in people and in societies as a whole.


Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard talked about "A Leap of Faith."  I noticed that William James talks about the same thing only he calls it something like "A leap into the dark."  The same idea but one from a religious mind (Kierkegaard) interpretation and the other from the psychological mind (James) that doesn't consider itself religious.


Being "Saved."

The complete "Being Saved" experience is like the philosopher Blaise Pascal's night of fire in which he experienced a total conversion from a mathematician to a man of God.  (I had the same kind of experience myself).  This is also like St. Paul's "Burning Bush" experience in the Bible. There are people who will experience the same psychological experience, but some will explain it entirely in psychological terms (like William James did) and won't even connect it to religion, or to a God, and then another type of mind will only see it in religious terms.  I think there have been great minds of understanding who were not basically of the religious mind, like William James, Carl Jung and Freud. However, I think that the greatest minds embrace both points of view.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, also, like Pascal, ended up being a completely spiritual mind.  Even so, I don't think they ever disregarded the truth of mathematics.  It's just two different worlds, which brings up the basic philosophical problem of which world is more real.  For me, the people who only believe what they can see and hear, in other words dead to the spiritual side of life, are also dead in their souls.  I think that this type of personality most often self-destructs, if they don't ever are blessed enough to change.


Sunday, August 21, 2011

Because It's Sunday


Luke 6:35-36

But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; 
and your reward will be great and you will be sons of the Most High. 
 For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.  Therefore be merciful, 
just as your Father also is merciful.



I experienced major disappointment last week that is, unfortunately, frequent with me, and I think most people experience this problem, too.  It's when you are doing something that has some benefit for another person, and they don't respond with any appreciation, either because perhaps they don't appreciate it, or perhaps don't appreciate as much as you think they should; or if they do appreciate it, they aren't able to show their appreciation.  It's the universal problem of giving but getting anything in return.  One of the biggest regrets of my life, is that the people who did the most for me, I didn't show enough appreciation.  Disappointment is a very bad feeling, not only for the person who is disappointed in the other, but for the person who does the disappointing.

The deep feeling of disappointment is caused by expecting something in return in the first place.  When you expect something in return it doesn't happen, because that expectation is wrong.  I think you have to try to give your most and best to everyone, and expect nothing in return from that person.  If one does that, God will reward that person in better ways than if the unappreciative person had given something in return.  As I heard someone say recently, "You can't out do God."

However, I still think it damages a relationship when one person can give more than the other person.  I think that means that the people aren't evenly matched for a successful relationship, and they both should just move on.  But, you shouldn't hate each other, but just understand that's the way it is.  Everything in life evens out.






Monday, August 8, 2011

Thoughts about the Future

Marcus Aurelius

Do not allow the future to trouble your mind; for you will come to it, if come you must, bringing with you the same reason that you now apply to the affairs of the present.
...from Meditations by Marcus Aurelius








Proverbs 27: 1-3

Do not boast about tomorrow,
for you do not know what a day may bring forth.
Let another praise you, and not your own mouth;
someone else, and not your own lips.
Stone is heavy and sand a burden,
but provocation by a fool is heavier than both.


Most people have had the experience of telling everyone they knew that something was going to happen, like getting a certain job, or going to a certain school, and then it doesn't happen, and one is left feeling embarrassed because they already told everyone about it.   Because God only knows the future and they are trying to cross over into his area of expertise.  If you say something like "next month I'm taking a trip to Europe" that's not bragging about the future.  Bragging about the future is like saying "When my child grows up, he's going to Harvard," or "I know that next year I will finally receive a Nobel Prize."  Only God knows if those things will happen or not, and if you state that you know they are going to happen, they won't, because God doesn't like it when people have so much hubris that they can say what their future will be.


Also, this morning I was reading Psalm 34 and felt I had some new insight, which I thought I would share as soon as I did turn on my computer.

Psalm 34:13-14

Who appointed him over the earth?
Who put him in charge of the whole world?
If it were his intention
and he withdrew his spirit and breath,
all mankind would perish together and man would return to the dust.


What I got especially from reading this is the line "and he withdrew his spirit and breath..."

Our spirit and breath is not OUR spirit and breath, it is God's spirit and breath, and when he withdraws it from us, we die.  He can withdraw it from groups of people as well as one person.  He could withdraw it from all of mankind instantaneously  if he wanted to.  Our spirit and breath either from ourselves or from others, is not ours to withdraw, that is the ultimate in hubris, because we are doing something that is God's responsibility alone.  Hubris and pride are really the same thing.

It's often said that God punishes pride more than anything else.  I think the reason for this is that when people have excessive pride, which can be called hubris, we are taking credit for something that God is doing through us.  I think God punishes for not being given credit to him when it is due.  He punishes most when man crosses over and does things that God is really in charge of doing, like providing life and death, like discerning the future.  Only God knows the future.  When people brag about something that they think is going to be their future, or something that is going to happen to them, have you noticed it never happens.  If a person states a fact: i.e., next week I'm receiving an award for excellence, that's not bragging.  That's just stating a fact.  Bragging about the future is making hope sound like fact.