seeing red

This was a recommendation.  I had a slight hankering for a red, and the beer store clerk was all ready to give me suggestions.  It's a (French) Canadian version of German altbier, and the aroma is a strong, fruity sour that comes out almost as soon as the cap comes off.  It's also about as red as any red beer, although it is a bit cloudy, and the foam is sort of yellow-y.  There's a kind of similarity to cider between appearance and smell.  The flavor is undeniably beer, though.  Quite satisfactory, given what I was looking for.  In spite of the hint of Belgian beers at first whiff, the flavor is lacking any of that sharp sour so typical of the Belgians.  It's a hearty, round bitter with just the mildest bit of sweetness rising up from the back of the tongue.  A good pondering beer, to sit back and relax with.

blessed beverage

Casasola of Valladolid came on strong a couple of fairs ago, with an excellent summertime beer in particular.  This one in the bottle was new for me.  It's a shame Halloween has come and gone actually, since there's something about robed and hooded figures that always seems sinister.

Spooky!

There's a strong sweet-sour smell, slightly reminiscent of liquors made by religious orders.  Although it's called a blond beer on the bottle it has a dirty honey color, and also a bit of honey-like taste, sweet without any bitter at all.  I notice some floral notes too.  I worried a little at first that it would end up being too strong, but the beer stays pleasant and easy.  The sweetness makes it nice for a colder, wintery night, although serving the beer a little colder, just a little, would make it a nice summer drink too.

serve the seve

Sevebrau was introduced to me at the last beer fair, but we did not have the pleasure of the brown ale at that time.  The brewer was proud to tell me about the German style brews he makes, and indeed, the labels also remind the attentive drinker of the origin of the beer's quality.

Serona Strong Ale pours out a nice ruddy chestnut, not terribly foamy.  I detect a faint hint of apples in the air.  The taste is on the sweet side, but not overly so, with only the mildest hint of bitter hiding in the top of the taste.  It's a smooth beer, very easy going down, really much more subtle than dark beers I recall from Germany.  And at the moment, I'd say it's much more my style.

go fish

I had a hankering for something heavy and filling, and the beer store clerk, rather proudly I think, pointed Dougall's out to me.  In spite of the name, it's a Spanish company, one that's been around in fairs and specialty shops for a while.

Popping the cap releases a heavy, chocolatey smell, although it's a very light odor.  I can already tell this will be a good one.  Indeed, it's one of those flowing syrupy stouts, gently filling the glass, bubbling up some tannish foam frosting.  Smoky, bitter taste at first, but it quickly blends into a sweeter and noticeably chocolate flavor.  The sweet and bitter trade off in potency over the time it takes to drain the glass, which makes for an interesting experience.  There were no suggestions for accompaniment on the bottle, and I don't know that I'd want anything to interfere in the enjoyment.  It's really a very nice beer, one you'd want with some good music or good reading while you lounge around under a fluffy blanket on a poofy couch...someday that drinking couch will be mine.

Drinking On The Way To Happiness

It is a happy coincidence that we chose this topic while the Beer Fair was on, this time in its fifth incarnation.  We imagine that happiness is the default state and that anything less is a sign of something we are doing wrong.  However, it is not really happiness that is the default, but rather apathy or numbness.  Happiness is something we have to work for.  The question then is what we need to do, and how much.  This is jarring for many people, who seem to believe that they should naturally be happy without any effort on their part, and that if something interferes with that feeling they have no sort of personal responsibility for caring for their emotional state and it must be the fault of others if they are under any sort of negativity.  We are told that we deserve a certain amount of success and when we do not reach that level, we feel like we have been cheated.  Of course, the status quo in many forms depends on our expecting a certain amount of joy or ease in our lives, because the idea that we can be happy if only we follow the right steps is a powerful one, one that prevents revolutions and social upheaval.  As long as enough people are happy, or believe they are happy, the majority will keep quiet.

The Source reminisced a little about her teenage years, saying she and her friends were sure that being happy was for stupid people.  Only the most removed from reality could be happy.  As an adult, her opinion began to evolve and she was influenced by the saying "There is no way to happiness; happiness is the way" and helping others started to take on importance.  She also came to the realization that happiness is momentary, rather than a state that can be extended to the point of being permanent.  Hobbies and achievements can contribute to being happy, but she also asked what can impede reaching happiness.  She suspected it had to do with some amount of dissonance between thought and feeling.  Another participant proposed steps to happiness as suggested by L. Ron Hubbard, many of which have a similarity to the Ten Commandments embraced by Christians.  This does echo the appearance of rejection of responsibility or ignorance in the search for happiness that many people, most predictably the religious, ascribe to.

Our Doctor explored the etymology of the word, as he often does, mentioning that the Spanish translation has different origin, hence quite understandably a different feel to it.  The Latin root is connected to fertility and prosperity, giving an idea of what is required to reach that emotional state.  He also introduced the concept of satisfaction versus happiness, and stated that the idea of what happiness is changes over time anyway.  In a later contribution, he chided people for using Indian or Chinese philosophers to try to convince others, calling them cowards.  People hide behind exotic ideas that make them appear learned, worldly, or wise, whether they understand or fully agree with them or not.  We need to find solutions to our problems, but we are not prepared to look for or accept them because we feel protected by our ignorance.  He believes the cured patient might not be happy, but certainly satisfied.  Also, our level of happiness can be reflected in our biology, making it rather more tangible than many of us considered at first.

The Actress took a fairly combative view, stating flatly that happiness was not natural at all, it was a sort of mirage that we are told to chase.  In her opinion, only psychopaths are always happy.  Towards the end, she mentioned human enjoyment of problem solving, which would include overcoming negative emotions to "win" at the game of life.

The True Philosopher told us that the "Way to Happiness" is purely metaphysical, without any ethereal or celestial component.  Happiness is similar to pleasure, but not quite the same thing.  Interestingly, his recent religious experience was one that left a bad taste in his mouth.  In spite of the instigation to happiness that the pastor was trying to achieve, it felt more like rigid dictatorship to the Philosopher, who was not happy at all with the feeling.

The Organizer could not let go of the question of what prevents us from being happy.  More than a path or process, it is avoiding or overcoming obstacles that we need to pay attention to.  We do not even know what makes us happy personally, if we are saturated in ideas that society bestows upon us which are not necessarily for our benefit.  We should think about how much we need to know to make a plan for happiness, to reach it and to maintain it as best as possible.  We need to have an awareness of our own reality and possibilities to efficiently find happiness.  At the same time, he gave us this thought to ponder: just because you are sad, that does not mean you are not happy.

The Deep Thinker was reminded again of chemical stimulants.  It is true that chemicals can produce an effect of happiness, but there is a certain disdain for it.  It is not real happiness if you need outside sources to produce it.  He also mulled over the temporariness of happiness, noting that even objects that please us are not eternal.  He asked if there was a feeling of pleasure that was not dependent on an external and possibly fleeting object, one that could be coaxed into being everlasting.

An Educator gave a bundle of seemingly trite phrases, but under the focus if this topic they could well be truths: happiness and unhappiness are part of the same package; happiness requires a fight because it is easier to accept the bad than make an effort for the good; the best way to happiness is to be at one with oneself.  She also made another point that I think is key, which is that we always need to weigh whether it makes more sense to enhance our reality or lower our expectations.  In the simple explanation of Buddhism, it is not lack that makes us unhappy, but desire for the things we lack.  If we can rid ourselves of the desire for things that are impossible to obtain, we would all be happier.  It sounds like a very rational piece of advice, but the Writer, while not disagreeing, was sure that happiness could not be reached when one is guided only by rationality.

The Seeker of Happiness did not have many new things to reveal at first.  He agreed that happiness is a very individual feeling, and that we have the responsibility to find it for ourselves, which means we need to be aware of what makes us happy.  He also said the feeling was the great stimulus for people to do things, I suppose the desire to reach the feeling really.  He then brought up the contrast of attitudes among the citizens of "free" countries and those in totalitarian states, calling it interesting that freedom provides people with more happiness, while a state that might "work" for the good of the people tends not to be popular.  He also finally gave some explanation of his use of the term "love" in this and other meetings: loosely basing his idea on the Maslowe pyramid of needs, he said food was the most important, but being able to achieve everything else depends on interactions with other people.  Positive connections, of course, are the ones he considers to be love.  I find it a much broader definition than might be useful, but it is more understandable than thinking of romantic love as the only possible way to have a relationship with others.

Whether produced by means of physical activity, chemical intake, or sensory provocation, we do have an internal urge to seek out happiness.  Sometimes happiness wanders into our path for the taking.  Beer fairs have a habit of doing just that.

There were a number of new names for me, which was exciting, although the variety of styles was on the normal side.  Since Sunday is a busy day, naturally, I started near the door with Arriaca.  They had a nice light blond ale, simply called Arriaca Rubia.  The rep called it "golden" and was clearly happy to practice a little English.  The beer is indeed golden, a very happy color, and with a most classic head.  The taste is sharply bitter at first, a refreshing flavor, although towards the end of the glass it gets a little bit heavy.  Perhaps something to clean the palate would be recommended.

Farther up the aisle I found Yakka, which had appeared at fairs before.  On tap they had an IPA and a brown ale, which was named German Bio.  Since I'd started with the Rubia, I felt like something a little different, so toasty beer it was.  It has a nice, caramel color and a sweet smell and a surprisingly bitter taste, which is not at all unpleasant.  There is also a hint of some fruity sweetness in it, not quite honey-like.

La Vella Caravana was lurking around the corner with a name that draws attention: Mataelefantes.  It might seem like a warning about the strength of the brew, but it is a normal IPA at the normal alcohol level.  The name is actually a jab at the former king of Spain, known for his hobby of shooting large animals.  The beer has a good IPA taste with strong bitterness and slight citrus notes.  It has a nice color, opaque orange-y, and just a little head.  There's also a welcome consistency in the flavor, which remains the same in terms of bitter-sweet from top to bottom.  The taste is refreshing and clean all the way down.

Lights!

Look out, Dumbo, or Babar, or...whoever the elephant was in the Jungle Book

Sagra reappeared for this fair, but I didn't pay too much attention at first.  They have excellent beers, it's just that I'm very familiar with them...except for the Framboise they tapped as Sunday was wearing on.  I was leery, Belgian fruit beers do not always agree with me, but I was assured that it was not a lambic, just a red ale infused with raspberry.  So I went ahead and tried it, to my delight.  It really is a lovely beer if you want something just a little sweet, without the tang of the Belgians.  The color holds just a shade of red in the brownness, and the first whiff clearly tells you about the raspberries, but they come out in the flavor only slightly.  It has a very rounded, mellow ale flavor, with the fruit being just a light note on the top.  I found it to be a very relaxed drink, and even with the fruit it doesn't necessarily feel like a dessert beer.  As the glass gets emptied, a sort of spiciness developed, with a kind of cinnamony feel to the hit on the tongue and even in the scent.  It is a moderate and tasty beverage to the end though, and Sagra continues to be a highly respectable brewery.

My final take on Day 1 was a stout.  Not many were on tap this time, which was a little disappointing for me, but the bar itself had Juliett L'Anjub, the L'Anjub brewery's imperial stout.  It's a very representative stout, fantastic black color and light tan fuzz on top.  The stoutiest of scents comes off it, that wonderful mix of earthiness and sourness, which is reflected in the taste along with a nice dark chocolate blended in.  A lovely end to the first day's tasting.

The next day I only had the first hour of business free, so it was a bit quiet when I arrived.  Easy to see the offering.  I started with Santo Cristo, which had an IPA an acquaintance recommended the day before, but I was still looking for something unusual.  They also had a brown ale with chestnuts, Castaña Asada.  Very seasonal.  The brewery is based in Galicia, only founded a few months ago and just now sending out feelers for national markets, and they have a festival in November that traditionally involves roasted chestnuts, so it's not for Christmas, just a coincidence.  Only the chestnuts are used to give the beer's flavor a bit of body, it's hopless.  Very nice color, just a whiff of sweet smell, and an excellent flavor.  The chestnut is prominent, but the taste is very smooth and balanced, without the excesses of sweet some browns have had.  It is a little strong on the alcohol - 7.1% - but it is a very easy drink, clean and tasty to the end.

You see it's been drunk from some on the way to the counter

Finally, there was Maier Imperial IPA, a craft beer from Cádiz.  The south of Spain is not a region especially known for good beers, although Mammut hails from Granada.  Being an IPA, it's a risk with regards to strength, especially after the Santo Cristo, but what the hell, I'm at the fair!  It has a very bright and happy color, another orangey one, like Andalusian oranges maybe?  I was warned it would be bitter at first, but it really was hardly bitter at all.  The foam has just a touch of bitter, but the beer itself is smooth and sweet, a definite caramel touch.  The alcohol content is great at hide and seek, and the beer really tastes nothing like a strong IPA normally does.  It is dangerously delicious.  After about half a glass a big gulp seems to give off some fumes.

I'm allowed behind the bar!  Because it's early, I guess

There seemed to be fewer children this time around, and more glasses broken.  On day 2 there was a smash before the first hour was even up, and it looked like it was soda.  Must have had a few Maier's before that.

landmark

The label is one of the more decorated from Domus, and a quick look at the ingredients shows they were planning on something representative: orange and saffron flower, sounds like Al-Andalus, at least to those of us with the barest knowledge of the topic.

The smell is on the sweet side, just a touch from the bottle, but once poured some citrus notes come out.  The beer itself has an orangey glow, and a pithy white head.  I got a good mouthful of the foam in the first sip, and it's quite tasty itself with a mild citrus flavor and a hint of something spicier underneath.  I wonder if it's the saffron flower; I actually have no idea what that would taste like by itself, and I'm only really familiar with saffron as a coloring agent.  Still, there's definitely something in this beer besides the orange and regular grain and hops.  It recalls Christmas cookies for me, ginger, cloves, that sort of taste.  It could actually come from the wheat portion of the recipe, I guess.  Many wheat beers do have that little sharpness to them.  It seems to me to be a good holiday beer, for Halloween or Christmas.  I have my doubts about Thanksgiving, just because orange and cranberry doesn't sound quite right to me.

It is orange, I swear

recurring divinity

Skadi seems to be a recent addition to the Lest family.  My impression is that she's a little lesser known than previously honored deities, but maybe I don't run in the right circles.  The stout does go with the idea of warming up after snow and cold, although skiing might not be the best choice of activity.

The color is promising and the beer is a bit frothy.  It doesn't have a strong smell, but a good whiff reveals the sweetness.  It's sweet at first, followed by a bit of sour/bitter, but then a lower sweetness brings up the rear.  It's kind of a high sweetness that leads off, and the finish is more honeyed.  After a while I notice a sort of mild cheesy feel to the beer, probably from the lactose portion of the recipe.  It has a comforting feel, like many stouts, something you curl up with at the end of the day.

gentleman porter

Naparbier has had its ups and downs in my sampling.  They do try to be creative, though, and that's always something to support.  I couldn't help grabbing this bottle with that eye catching label:

That beard, that bowler, that monocle...!

It comes out beautiful black and smooth, with a spongy head of nice tan color.  Twangy porter smell.  Mild and round taste, almost milky, sweet but not tart or overpowering.  It's more delicate than many porters I've tasted.  Fine base of earthiness.  Hint of dark chocolate, very dark.  It stays smooth and highly drinkable all the way through the glass, a very pleasant beer to sip after a long day, or even a short one.

Oh, it's one of those deep beers

it's madness

Today happens to be the first day of Madrid Beer Week, so I'd better put a Spanish beer up here.  Other locals will appear later, besides a certain celebration that comes about with reasonable regularity.

There's always something new in the beer stores.  This label harkens to national history, poking at the interest in a former queen, famous for her less than balanced personality.  The tragedy surrounding her and her immediate family also helps to make her one of the beloved historical figures of the country.  She might even have been a redhead.

Just popping off the cap releases a sharp, tangy scent, leaning toward the Belgian style.  The beer is ruddy, a bit cloudy - unfiltered after all - and only lightly headed.  The glassful smells more of sweet apples than the bottle let on.  The first taste is surprisingly sweet, but a very mellow and mild bitterness comes up too, gently laying itself over the tongue.  The flavor is delicate but not weak, leaving the mouth quickly, without any stickiness or strange sourness hanging around.  Pleasant, more of a mild evening drink, seems to be hinting that some chips or pretzels would be good about now.

The Skeleton Within Us

Skeletons are an interesting image.  The skull especially is used to symbolize death and danger.  Bones are often the last thing remaining of a body after death, sometimes even after we want to hurry them on their way to leave the physical world.  Even if they represent the loss or absence of life, their endurance can also represent the continuation of existence, the idea that remains in the minds of the living.  There is also the idea that we all have a skeleton; what is inside us is less distinguishable from others than what is outside.  While there are certainly differences, one skeleton is much harder to tell from another than a body with flesh is.  It takes experts, people who can observe the smallest details, to separate them.  We also have the idea of the skeleton in the closet, or something that is hidden.  It can be our most private thoughts or awful secrets, but our metaphorical skeleton is something that is known only to us, and sometimes we are not even aware of it ourselves.

The Source of the topic is one of those people who like to analyze everything, but frame it in poetry at the same time.  He was inspired by the BBC series "Inside the Human Body", which made him consider the marvel that is the body, the engineering wonder that is the human hand, for example.  He pondered the difficulty of knowing the objects we have around us, saying faraway objects are hard to examine in detail, while those close by are taken for granted.  He mentioned his feeling that he personally might rely too much on analysis to understand his world.  He believes that there should be a balance between the mental processes and the emotional when it comes to taking in information about our surroundings.  Later on, he mulled over the emotions tied to the body itself.  Most people have feelings they might call "intuition", ideas that have appeared without any apparent logical process.  There is also the shame we are trained to feel over our bodies, due mainly to religion in the Source's opinion, and the demonizing of our natural sensations and desires.  Life should be celebrated and enjoyed, not rejected and bound in mistrust.  He finds a risk in ignoring the body and the pleasures of life.  The Skeleton represents the most physical part of ourselves, and also the part that we are told to pay little mind to, although I think we are told to pay even less mind to intuition in most cases.

Our Doctor began by saying he lived as a contrarian, always against whatever he finds.  So, he does not believe in analysis.  His specialization is the brain rather than the skeleton, but he noted that information can certainly be extracted from bones if one knows how to look for it.  He also warned, however, that observation changes behavior, something known from psychology as well as quantum science.  The information we get from analysis should be tempered with intuition.  Putting himself in the position of the observer of the group, he reminded us of his opinion that philosophy is biography, and while we speak from our own experiences, the way we speak may not be our own.  He thought he saw influences of both Paul Éluard and Paul Watson in the proposition of the Source.  We should not put too much faith in our own perspective.  As a doctor, he is well aware of the effects disease has on development, of our physical bones and mental state as well.  He extended this idea to humanity as a body, mentioning tragedies and atrocities as "germs" that affect us.  In his point of view, they make us better, they help us learn to be better people.  Then again, he also repeats that philosophers, and actors, are professional liars, so perhaps his opinions should be taken with a grain of salt always.  Finally, he proposed that ideas not be written or told, as much as played or performed, or painted.  Ideas always have more to them than simple words, and by incorporating other senses into their presentation we understand them more fully.

The True Philosopher reminded us that philosophy does not deal with objects, but with the ideas of objects.  In his preparatory writing, he focused on the meaning of the skeleton, or support, to our health and well being, it mainly being something ever present, but largely ignored.  Aristotle, he said, marked the difference between philosophy and science, where ideas and practice separate.  He also introduced a word worthy of the Source: anthropoetics; he used the term to emphasize how important symbolism is to humans, certainly something the Source would seem to agree with, as well as many other participants.

The Seeker of Happiness pointed out that being aware that we have a skeleton is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the human being as compared to other animals.  We have the basic need to be healthy, but once that is established, we want more.  Then, in order to reach loftier goals, we have to study the things that are not immediately visible to us, both physically and psychologically.  At the end, he fell into his pet topic, repeating that "love is all we need" and empathy is what makes the human being successful, which seems to be a deviation from the focus of the meeting to me, but maybe that is the internal support of the human being for him.

The Organizer had just a small bit of an idea for us beforehand, but did elaborate in the meeting itself.  The skeleton is not, of course, the physical bone structure, but the metaphor for a framework or outline.  When it comes to self-examination, we cannot trust that we will find an accurate image of ourselves, and in fact, others do have access to our internal information, which can give outsiders a better, more accurate view than we ourselves have.  Knowledge resides in the brain, and has an actual physical format, even when we discuss abstract ideas.  The physical skeleton may be the hardest, most durable part of the body, but as an idea it is highly changeable.  Fortunately for us, that means that ideas that turn out to be wrong should not be too difficult to change.  For the Organizer, rather than meditation or attention to gut feelings, the way to know ourselves is to learn more about statistics.

The Prodigal Participant contrasted the importance of external appearance with the interest in the internal self.  We put a lot of weight on the superficial, on the outside, and feel an uneasiness or even fear of examining the inside.  For this Participant, the reason is probably that we are afraid to find out how different we are from the others.  While there might be more similarities than differences, it is the differences that stand out and we do our best to hide and ignore them to fit more seamlessly into our groups or society.

The Writer also mentioned the religious notion that the body is not to be given importance, saying it was only in the 18th century that those ideas started to change, and they have not completely changed yet.  Life is full of suffering and the way to avoid it is to focus on the brain rather than the body.  She also acknowledged the possibility of distorted ideas about ourselves, saying that the physical skeleton is a very different thing from our body image, not to mention our ideas about our person and self.  She recommended yoga as a way to reconcile the awareness of body and mind and reach some balance.

A Newcomer focused on the literary images of skeletons as death over history, mentioning Hamlet holding Yorick's skull as an example.  She also thought the source of many of our problems and stress is the attempt to separate the body from the mind, attaching negative feelings to the body by using the skeleton, when the two should always be considered two parts of a whole.  She wondered whether the body or the mind has more control, but then seemed to answer herself saying that everything is in fact a state of mind, even when the body shows more effects.  The Organizer took exception to the idea of "mind", one of his pet topics, and after her turn stated that only the brain, and therefore only the physical, exists, which means that although the Newcomer is right to say it is a mistake to separate physical and mental processes, it is also a mistake to consider ourselves a combination of two things rather than one thing with interdependent components.

It is fitting, I suppose, that little light was shed in the end, with more questions and doubts being left around than answers.

currant events

The Belgians are known for using fruit to flavor their beers, but one day I came upon a Norwegian variety.  Norwegian beer isn't around every corner here, and red currants?  All the more interesting to me.  It seems to be unfiltered, as there are chunks of ... stuff floating around in there.  Not alarming chunks, just what one tends to see in unfiltered ales.  The beer has a pretty rosy tint and is a little cloudy in general.  The smell isn't strong at all.  The taste is interesting; it's a bitter ale but with a sharp bite from the currants.  Many fruit beers get away with a lot of sweet, but not Rips.  A nice glass of this beer, chilly, would be a fine thirst quencher for me on a Madrid summer evening, though.  The astringency is quite a pick-me-up.

parks of Madrid - Parque de Berlín

This is a small park, near the German School, but twisting paths and tall trees make it seem bigger than it is.  Willy Brandt attended the opening of the park,  in 1967, and the monument to the fall of the Wall was added in 1990.

There are a number of plants and trees marked along the paths.

Several Berlin Wall slabs stand in a fountain.

The bear is around, although he's a little camouflaged in the trees.

Looks like they can have small concerts or performances, near the basketball courts.

Here's a thing I don't recognize.

It's fenced in, so it looks like you can toss balls down the alleyway.

There are actually two facing each other.

After whatever sport or performance or leisurely walk, you can have some refreshment.

 

Madrid parks are full of parrots these days.

Looking down from the back end.

The street is actually right behind the trees, but you can hardly tell.

The Line Between Genius and Insanity

There was some disagreement at first about the existence of such a division, although we allowed the idea to be presented.  The Organizer himself was not present to veto any unphilosophical ideas, so it was up to me and I did allow it.  The foreseeable problem was that there is a medical definition of the terms that is much stricter than the social one.  Genius is often quantified with tests such as the one used for IQ, and insanity has a number of other qualifications to meet, medically speaking.  However, when we use the expression, we use a broader meaning.  "Genius" is generally something that tells us something new and enjoyable, while "insanity" is something frightening, even if it has the same novelty.  Many of the contributions tried to point out that there is no necessary link between the two conditions, which I agree with; however, there must be some reason that we link them in this common expression.  I wonder if it is because of behavior.  Many geniuses are considered "eccentric" and display behaviors that most people will not engage in, and we allow it because we consider these people to be too focused on their "genius" to be bothered with social niceties.  The insane also have odd behaviors, but because they are unable to react to our reality in the same way we are.  Some studies have shown that interpretation of behaviors as "insane" or perfectly normal is heavily influenced by context, for example in the case of researchers without any diagnosed mental problems feigning illnesses such as schizophrenia, and when behaving normally in hospital situations their behavior was still interpreted by doctors as "ill".

The Source began by trying to deny a definite connection between genius and insanity, saying that they are two separate conditions that may happen to coexist.  Later she focused on the condition of mental illness, saying that it means having a distorted view of reality, which can happen to anyone who does not have human contact.  As a symptom of this distortion, I imagine, she stated that the insane do not care if they cause pain or harm to anybody.  She did not mention her opinion of hermits or religious people who voluntarily removed themselves from society.  An example of genius for her is Bill Gates, mostly based on his ability to be considered successful by society.

The Writer also came down on the side of separation, mentioning a number of artistic geniuses who are not considered insane, but rather addicts.  She also pointed out the importance of genetics in mental development, both for good and for bad.  Later on, she insisted that genius is something apart from mere creativity or intelligence - a genius changes things.  While they do not necessarily suffer, society tends not to support them out of fear of change and envy of their capabilities.  It occurred to me that the tendency towards substance abuse may be because of the lack of support people with creative, novel vision receive, so that there really is a link between chemically induced "insanity" and genius, although not one that is internal to the person in question.

Our Doctor, being a doctor, had a great many things to say on the subject.  First, he mused that "line" was a bit improper for description, saying "stitch" or "seam" might be better.  It does make sense according to his perspective, since there is no natural connection between genius and insanity, and people with a romantic bent have joined them artificially.  Being so sewn together, we might look at them as two sides of the same coin, with genius being the positive side and insanity being the negative.  However, it depends a good deal on what we mean by each of the terms.  He did not deliver a definition at first, saying only that there must be something beneficial to the world in genius.  Further on, he mentioned "Hamlet", as an example of the suffering genius, at least in terms of artistry.  For our Doctor, the artist is at his best when he is destroyed.  He also stated that the newness of the genius' worldview helps with acceptance, both points later challenged by the Writer.  As for the causes of each condition, the Doctor reminded us that we are constantly being influenced by things we are not aware of, and everything happens in the brain rather than in our senses.  In his last contribution, he warned the group that not being a clinical neurologist means we are lost in life.

The Thinker chose the word "association" to focus on for his view of the subject.  He also looked for a reason the two ideas have a link in common language, saying the associations that are made in the brain between objects and ideas end up being extreme for both people of genius and people suffering insanity.    He then considered the meaning of genius, repeating the view that a genius has new and original ideas, and adding that the mental process of association is more under control, or at least is observed by the genius, while the person who is insane has no awareness of that process.  He used the paintings of Sorolla to illustrate the need to have perspective.  In that style of painting, not limited to Sorolla but easily distinguishable in his works, blobs of color form a coherent picture only when the viewer is at the proper distance to capture it.  By standing too close, the viewer loses the big picture without even seeing any details.  For him, the ability to create this sort of vision is a mark of genius.  Later on, he mentioned external manipulation of perspective by means of substances like LSD, saying Timothy Leary's acid tests allowed some of the participants to achieve a higher level of creativity and association than they had ever had before.  He admitted that plenty of other people had serious problems as a result of trying to stimulate their mental states with this sort of drug, but remained fascinated by the possibility.  He also expressed a suspicion that the solitary lifestyle followed by many scientists is responsible for the more "insane" behaviors they develop, taking a cue from the Source.  Besides being isolated from others, the Thinker told us, people engaged in this sort of activity are also trying to use very abstract ideas for concrete ends.  Without some measure of balance in the real and tangible, not to mention easily accessible, these researchers risk their mental stability.
The Actress responded with the point that Sorolla was not considered a genius in his time, like many others who achieved fame after their deaths.

A Newcomer brought up the question of whether any one of us is really free of insanity.  He emphasized the fact that both "sick behavior" and "advanced behavior" are really matters of statistics, since to be a genius one only has to be noticeably smarter than the average in one's surroundings, and everyone has some degree of distance from the "norm" which might be considered insanity under the right circumstances.

The Organizer examined some of the overlap in description of the two states in his short essay.  He emphasized the colloquialism of the phrase when his turn to speak came, insisting that our goal was not to examine the causal connection between them, but understand the underlying meaning.  It is an expression used to identify solutions.  As a practical example, he told us that whoever finds a menú del día for €10 in Madrid is a genius.  For further definition, he said that we tend to find genius in middle- to upper-class people, while the lower classes produce the insane, although dangerously or criminally insanity can appear in any social stratum.  The Organizer was clearly referring to our social interpretation of behavior, and the habit of being more tolerant of oddness the more money or social standing somebody has, although the Writer disagreed with this observation, saying that we have recognized genius in people who do not come from wealth.  The Organizer agreed that geniuses rebel against the conventional wisdom, but the informal diagnosis of insanity means nothing towards an individual's chances of contributing to society.  It is merely a tool of risk assessment.  At the end, he stated that in spite of the respect people seem to have for genius, authority much prefers regular people who do not have trouble following the rules.  Putting others in boxes of "normal", "genius" or "insane" is just another way of keeping us under control.  Finally, he reminded us that the scope of philosophy is to clarify our thinking, by way of use of language.

The True Philosopher had said when the topic was chosen that he did not see any line between the two concepts at all.  In his writing, he concluded that the only distinction worth making is between sane and insane genius.  He also spoke of our attachment to IQ tests, although their value in determining intelligence is minimal, and has nothing to do with proving sanity.  We make connections that are not necessarily there when it serves a purpose, but closer examination reveals that those connections are not based on science or fact.

The Prodigal Participant focused on the social designation of genius, and reminded us that geniuses are often ignored or persecuted before being celebrated, or even at the same time as being celebrated.  As for insanity, she said she was shocked by the amount of people using it as an excuse in criminal trials, although this idea turns out not to be as true as it is easy entertainment.  The connection for her seems to be the suffering that geniuses and the insane experience in a world of "normal" people.

The Seeker of Happiness decided that the most important quality for a true genius is success.  He referenced one of the quotes from the True Philosopher's essay saying that this is the difference between genius and insanity.  Being of a practical mind, he said that very intelligent people who cannot make their ideas work in the real world should not be called geniuses, and even people who have feasible ideas but are persecuted are not geniuses.  Most of those we call genius are stupid.  They were not able to navigate the social waters and put their talents to work for themselves and society, therefore, the title of genius should not be bestowed.  As for insanity, it really has no bearing on genius, being a physical, medical problem in reality.

A lively discussion was had with many interesting points raised.  It turns out to have been a genius topic.

hoppity hop

Yeah, yeah, we know what sells

Almost ridiculously aromatic and bubbly before it even leaves the bottle, once released from those confines it settles down immediately.  It has a healthy pumpkin orange color, with the white head on top like pumpkin pie a la mode.  Its unfiltered nature is, perhaps, glaringly obvious, but the flavor is subtle and calm, not reaching a crescendo of bitterness until a couple of seconds after swallowing.  It seems to be the balance of smooth amber versus hopped up ale that creates the smooth, refreshing texture.  I don't detect the strong citrus that accompanies most IPAs, so it's a welcome variation.

Is War Inevitable in History?

There was some frustration from the usual frustrated suspects when the topic was suggested, the complaint being that the past has already happened, therefore we cannot say any war is not inevitable.  However, taken another way, we might wonder what needed to happen in order to prevent wars of the past, in order to prevent wars in the future, I imagine.  Is it possible to find some key points that would draw the path of human history to peace?  Can we apply the circumstances of the past to present and future?  One difficulty is that human beings are violent animals.  Not every individual is violent at every moment, but we have aggressive and destructive patterns of behavior, as a species, when dealing with other humans, other species, and even inanimate objects.  The violence that war harnesses is always with us, as a natural part of our selves.  While we might try to lower the intensity and number of explosions of expression, eliminating violence does not seem likely.  Another difficulty comes out when we define what we mean by "war".  Conflicts between individuals or even small groups are not generally considered wars, except when given almost joking names.  Wars are between nations, tribes, large organized groups.  Individuals fight for their group because they identify with it, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for something that will not reward them for their sacrifice, or even punish them if they do not "choose" that path.  As previously mentioned, violence may not be eradicable from the human being, but if we stop identifying ourselves with the large group that can afford to see each member as an expendable part, conflict would be limited to people with real problems with each other.  Our need to belong to groups probably makes this an extremely unlikely event, however.

Much along the same lines is the writing by the Leader, who was unable to join us due to some seasonal viral visit.  He also examines the reasoning of those who take their groups to war, mostly pointing to the power of persuasion organized violence has both for those who commit it and those who suffer it.  The True Philosopher insisted in his short article that "history" was also in need of definition for proper discussion.  His conclusion is that history, or rather History, and war are so closely linked as to be one and the same.  He referred to Francis Fukuyama's work The End of History in which the theory that without conflict there is no need to record events is discussed.  The Philosopher noted that Fukuyama started from the very limited perspective, focusing only on the political ideologies of Communism and Capitalism, while ignoring other sources of conflict between groups, and in fact the author himself later admitted that he had been mistaken in declaring the "end of History" to have come.  The Philosopher reminded us of the saying that history is written by the winners, implying that the winners have a vested interest in showing how they were simply drawn into a conflict and managed to come out all right.  They might even have been the victims of their rival's machinations.  Yet, for history yet to be written, how can we say any war is not inevitable?  Maybe particular wars are possible to avoid, but some armed conflict will certainly take place, simply because of human nature.  Towards the end of the meeting he laid blame for war on the doorsteps of the powerful, saying that they have already considered the courses of action that we lowly Sunday philosophers might suggest, and discarded them because they do not serve their interests.  In the end, war is about power.

The Friend of the Animals was sure that the existence of weapons and the sales of arms were the root causes of war.  Get rid of the weapons, she insisted, and war will disappear.  Conflict will be limited to individuals who have to stab each other, not battles where a bomb can flatten a city block.  She displayed a good deal of faith in diplomacy, saying we need to send diplomats before all else, people who work for peaceful solutions, not just expediency.

A New Regular focused on violence more than organized warfare, saying it is sometimes necessary for defense.  Recognizing that violent part of human nature will not be contained, she also said that pacifism and non-violence cannot contain aggression, and in fact there are moments when the right thing to do is fight.

The Prodigal Participant basically took for granted that wars would start; her worry was that they go on too long, either because of manipulation by those who benefit from the conflict or by simple incompetence.  She was almost offended by the interference that some countries inflict on others, meddling in their wars in order to secure favors and resources from them.  In some cases, wars drag on for generations, which this Participant found to be the most inhumane for citizens of the country in question, since their infrastructure and systems of health and education will almost necessarily be damaged or even destroyed, leaving an ignorant and ill populace even when the conflict is over.  As an example she mentioned Vietnam, while the Friend of the Animals felt Palestine to be a fitting illustration.  These specific mentions irritated the Longest of Winds, who lectured the Participant on not keeping to the topic at hand, although it did not take long for him to go off on his own tangent about terrorism and Big Pharma.

Our conclusion was a pessimistic one on human nature: since war cannot be avoided as a whole, the best we can do is try to let only the shortest and most limited practices of organized violence through our filter of behavior.

from the past

It had come to my attention that there just wasn't much Czech beer to be had in Madrid.  I went to my nearest beer stores and the closest I came was a Slovak beer, except for this Krušovice. It's one of the "industrial" beers, one you can find in plenty of places around the Czech Republic.  That seems to be the reason it's available here; other beers just don't travel very well and by the time they get to Madrid, they aren't in the best of states.  So, another trip down memory lane.

 It smells like beer, sort of sour and prickly.  There's good color and good head.  The taste is mildly sweet, just a touch of sour underneath.  It's an unintrusive light taste, reminiscent of summer and evening conversation.  After a while there's a funny sweetish aftertaste hanging around on the back of the tongue, but it's not too unpleasant or distracting.  It's just a solid example of what we normally consider beer.