Monday morning orientation.

[saffronhare]

Important public safety notes:

1. It seems I am the Anti-Seducer. Expect no fun at all from this bunny.

2. There aren't enough check-boxes on my PTO sheet. How does one document calling in "mean"? I really wanted to do that today...

3. Although I'm a long-time member of the This Shit is Real Club, learning how to be a magician after all these years of being a priest is giving me shit up to my eyeballs. Naturally, I was not expecting this. My only joy at this point is the thought that featherynscale may also be suffering -- because that is what love is all about.

And a positive note to balance it out: The three young people I worked with in KidSpace yesterday blew my mind. We do not give them enough credit. I owe my daughter some serious magical/ritual time.

Saff out.
"It takes a village to satisfy my husband."

Comments

Sorry to disappoint you

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I'm actually not suffering. I'm learning a new and difficult paradigm, which for me is something suspiciously akin to fun.

After all, you gotta do *something* when your normal mode of operation gets too easy, don't you?

Re: Sorry to disappoint you

[saffronhare.livejournal.com]

Yes.

Remember -- I require something to terrify me just a little before it seems worthwhile...sort of like you require it to be amusing. The switch is leaving neither of us dissatisfied it seems.

[pete3great.livejournal.com]

Hehe, It's my understanding moving from the ecclesiastical to the magical is a brainblower. It's much easier to do it the other way around. "High magic is what allows you to do low magic." And all Priesthood is, is low magic.

[saffronhare.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's a brainblower. But I don't know that I'd classify either as "low" or "high," really. There's a much wider range of power and conscience than either side gives the other credit for, methinks.

They're wildly different paradigms in practice and theory, but -- I think -- essentially flawed in isolation. That's part of the point of year two in this experiment. In year one, we played "to type." Now, we're going against it. Next year is when we try to integrate them. That'll be something to see.

[pete3great.livejournal.com]

the problem is, and you seem to have fallen for it, is the "high" and "low" aren't value judgements. They are catagories for techniques and nothing more. Also, labeling things is good. Labels are what keep you from drinking poison. ;)

[saffronhare.livejournal.com]

You misjudge me. I'm too much of a language geek to let the everyday connotations of "high" and "low" bother me. It's just that I find binary thinking too limiting, so I try to avoid binary labels. Life is infinitely more complicated than that, you know?

I require at least three options, laid out over more than two dimensions.

Anti-Seducer crap

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

That's bizarre; I saw the Anti-Seducer entry and said to <lj user="kittenpants", "perhaps Saff will turn out to be that" - and then I actually read the text and saw that that was crap. That's crap, honey. And in your case, calling in "mean" should be a perfectly legitimate business practice. Saves on steam cleaning and sheetrock costs, I'd think. ;)

Re: Anti-Seducer crap

[saffronhare.livejournal.com]

The description didn't bother me at all. Inaccurate as their summary seemed, none of the others fit me well as an option. Plus, I sort of like the nomenclature. Might even add it to the growing list of titles on my LJ user info page -- when it's done, it'll be a real doozy.

Fair enough

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Like I said, the title seemed fine (in an "I consider this fair warning" sort of way), just their interpretation of 'why' was askew IMO.

Uh oh.

[zylch.livejournal.com]

I stayed in bed til 7.30 trying to figure out how I could legitimately call in "viciously barbaric." I suspect that you and I should not be in the same place at the same time today unless there are also (non-lethal) weapons present.
.
.
.
As I think about it, lethal ones might be better after all.

Re: Uh oh.

[saffronhare.livejournal.com]

I'd wondered why you were so quiet this morning. I'm actually going to slink out of the office in a little while now and bring some work home with me.

I could always call WF and claim a "home emergency" that you need to leave for...

Re: Uh oh.

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Don't tempt me.