Do I want to host my blog at my dulcimer site? Create a separate blog for stuff that’s relevant to my dulcimer site? Or continue to have a really wimpy rarely updated “what’s new” page for my dulcimer site? I guess it depends on how much or how little I want anyone who arrives at my dulcimer site to see the non-dulcimer stuff at this blog.
I’ve realized that it’s manipulative of me to require that someone, like my husband, not be angry with me. It’s an emotion. It’s his (or “their”, and so on throughout) emotion. He is allowed to feel it. Sometimes he gets mad at things that I don’t think are wrong, hurtful, sinful, or whatever. But even then I think he’s entitled to his feelings. What matters more is what he does with those feelings. I think it’s possible for him to continue to love me even when he’s mad at me.
I’ve been handling my loneliness badly again, or still. It sure is hard to do anything productive when you’re depressed. The internet beckons with its often worthless wares, because it’s so easy to just sit here and surf, avoiding the fact that I’m lonely and therefore unmotivated to get up and practice or make lunch or clean the bathroom or take a walk or pray. Going to a dulcimer festival, visiting friends afterwards, even having a student over, makes the loneliness so much worse. It’s easier to live with thirst in the desert than to live surrounded by water that you can’t get hold of.
My trio played for a presbytery dinner and talk this past Friday. The talk was about the church and the arts. One question raised was, “is beauty objective?” I think beauty is just as rooted in God’s character as love and truth and goodness are, but I wonder if it’s objective in quite the same way. For example, I think I should have the highest ideal of moral excellence, even though I know I won’t have complete victory over sin in this life. But I’m not so sure that I have the same obligation to have the highest ideals of artistic excellence. At least, I still think it’s good for me to accept my students’ own goals, and not drive them as if they were ambitious to become professional performers and recording artists. I think it’s okay if someone just wants to have some fun making pretty music, even if “pretty” is simple and unsophisticated. Is that kind of “pretty” still artistically excellent? It seems some in the church reject anything that’s too sophisticated, and they suffer from the loss of the great hymn texts and perhaps also from the oversimplification of the tunes. But others might also err who reject anything that’s too simple.