Bre Thoughts

Seared ahi tuna...

2008-10-15T15:00:00.000-07:00

I made seared ahi tuna, marinated in pure sesame oil, soy sauce, minced garlic, minced fresh ginger, black pepper, green onion, fresh lime and a little shitake dressing, but just a little.
They marinated for about an hour and a half.
I seared the tuna about a minute and a half on each side, then sliced and served over steamed spinach, though some sort of seaweed would have been more appropriate with toasted sesame seeds as apposed to drizzled sesame oil.
It was served next to a baby leaf salad (arugula, red leaf, green romaine, tango, red romaine, spinich and various others), that was mixed with small Italian plums, bartlett pears, blood orange, and drizzled with a shitake dressing.
As a contrast of flavor to the fish, I paired it with a chevre (humboldt fog) on a bland cracker so as not to take from the flavor, that was perfect with the fish. It was tangy, but creamy and managed to stay slightly sweet, that, rather than distract from the fish, it really ended up complimenting it nicely.
All in all, the meal was, well, tasty.
Next time I would like to serve large bay scallops, seared, with a shallot and brandy reduced light gravy splashed in after searing of the scallops, with scallions and myer lemon as a garnish for an apitizer. The tuna will be a smaller portion, probably one tuna steak for two people.
Haven't quite decided on dessert.
Something tart. and fresh. maybe a sorbeto?

On Seeing...

2008-01-03T19:28:00.000-08:00

It is not what we see, or how we see it; it is that we see at all.
I can look at an object and say "HA! I see!" But the meaning of the word is that of many definitions. Is it that I notice "things" are there? Do I know why they are there in general? OR do I MISunderstand them in their entirety?
I am really unsure if we can even fully understand anything.
But I do know that I open my eyes and "see" the things in front of me, but never on the side or behind me.
You can reach out and touch these things, see movement, interact.
But what is seeing?
Definition: seeing: the sense or power of sight; vision. 2. the act of using the eyes to see- having the sense of sight- conj: in view of the fact; considering; inasmuch as.
Sense in itself is a very vague word. Not concrete.
It is hard for me to even use the word touch. I believe that the space surrounding (and between) objects is fractal, therefore infinite (not finite), resulting in objects never touching. I came to this conclusion whilst drawing two points on a piece of paper. point a and point b.

a. b.
then i began to draw ways to get from either points, and they became destinations. (i have written some stuff on how objects are destination, and/or events. definition of event: 1. something that happens or is regarded as happening; an occurrence, esp. one of some importance.
2. the outcome, issue, or result of anything: The venture had no successful event.
3. something that occurs in a certain place during a particular interval of time.
4. Physics. in relativity, an occurrence that is sharply localized at a single point in space and instant of time. Compare world point.
and because all objects are occurring at all intervals of time i consider all objects to be events, and time can be a destination. ie: a place in time. and since i am referring to events as objects, and time as a place, time is a destination. okay, so that was the most confusing explanation i could possibly give you, and i hope that made some sense.)
anyways, so two points. a and b. and you begin to draw all of the paths that you possibly can to reach the other point. and our hypothetical paper that we are drawing this all on is infinitely big, so there are an infinite amount of possibilities to get from each point to another, although we know that the straight line is the quickest and easiest way to get to another object, destination, etc. i have another diagram that shows why it is fractal, but alas i cannot draw with a blog.
Back to objects never touching:
If this is true for all things, how are we able to touch them? If I truly believe space between all things is infinite, then I truly believe we never really touch them.
And there in lies the problem.
Because surely if I could not touch something, I would not be able to pick it up right? (something just passed through my mind right now about weightlessness. trying to pick up a heavy object, but if i couldn't touch it to attempt to move it, then it would just stay in position forever...nevermind...my mind is moving too much like a kid on candy)
And this is where someone could pipe up and say there is only the illusion of the act of touching, moving, picking up and manipulating. . But that is just as vague and as convoluted as infinite space between all things.
Zeno gives an example of objects never moving/ touching/ meeting.
(i wrote this before i read up more on his theory, so please keep in mind that i wrote this all this morning over a cup of coffee)
You shoot an arrow at a target. It had to travel half the length of the determined destination. And then half of the half. and half of that, etc. etc. for ever, until the object is moving so little that it appears as if it is not moving at all. Therefore the arrow will never hit the target. But obviously if you shoot and arrow in real life (depending on weather or not you are a skilled bows man), it WILL hit the target. If the arrow has to travel by infinite halves to get to the destination it will never reach then who is to say that the target is the destination? it may be the intended destination, bu i think the destination would have to infinitely change in order for the theory to work. but then if that happened, then maybe it hits the destination every time, but if that is true then it can't because of the infinite halves, and then rewind that and play again and again...etc.
Again, back to seeing, and actual true reality (lol), we SEE the arrow hit the target and sink in, but someone could chime in and give their two cents: "well, who's to say it ever really hit? maybe you are using your conscious reality to control what you see, blah, blah."
But that is hearsay, and not proven fact.
The only thing we know is that our eyes saw the arrow hit the target.
Where is the hearsay in that?

time is timeless...conversation with myself.

2008-01-02T19:25:00.000-08:00

"Is time relevant?"
Well it depends on what you're relating it to.
"OH, like knowing what time it is so you know when to sleep,, eat, got to work, school or an appointment?"
But even then you have to consider the fact that we as a human race created all those things, including the clock. So if you are thinking of time as the hours in a day, it is much bigger than a clock. It is day and months and years and decades and centuries, ect. But more.
"Wait, what about a day? WE don't need to know what time it is for the day to be over. The sun goes down and it is night."
What is night?
"Well, it's, um... it's what happens after the sun goes down!"
You don't know.
"Yes i do!"
No. You only know what you have been told, and they only know they have been told, etc. You have never thought to question language itself. How can you even begin to ask questions such as: "Is time relevent?" and "What is time?" if you cannot ask why?