A Lesson of Balance

Once upon a time, I started to keep a journal (for you youngsters, that's kind of like a blog, but on paper). The first entry was November 10, 1984, and I wrote in it off and on for the next four years, with one last entry – more of a note to myself – in March 1994.

One entry in particular I've always remembered was from August 16, 1985. I gave it a title: "A Lesson of Balance". I had been interested in paradox for a long time, and as I was thinking about it one day, it occurred to me that it was in essence like balance. I wrote it up as a dialog between a Master and a student. Here it is, unedited, exactly as I wrote it. Parts of it are a little cheesey, but hey, I was only 23.

---

"Master, why are you called the Silent One?"

"...To learn, one must observe. I am an observer. If you influence what you are observing you cease to be an observer. To speak is to influence. I observe and I learn. Everyone has something to teach. This man teaches of frea, hatred, self-centeredness, and egotism. This man teaches of love, devotion to others, and self-abasement, self-obliteration. I teach moderation, balance. Balance is the nature of the universe. Balance is wisdom.?

"You are a man of great wisdom, Master."

(Light smile) "So it has been said. And so, if I have balance, then I am also a man of great foolishness."

"But you seem to me as one filled with wisdom. Where, then, is there foolishness in you?"

"I do not know. Perhaps in that very statement. Perhaps I cannot see my own foolishness, and therein lies the foiolishness I woulds see. For, if I call myself an observer, and cannot observe, then I am a fool! And worse - a pretentious fool. Yet, having said this, I have seen my own foolishness, and am no longer the fool I had thought, and the foolishness must lie elsewhere!"

"And where is that?"

(Laughs) "I do not know!"

"You speak in riddle, Master."

"No, not in riddle. I speak of paradox, and that is surely the most perfect balance of all. That which is and is not. That which cannot be, yet is."

---

Ich Bin Ein Michiganer

There has long been a debate about what to call residents of Michigan. Probably the most common term is "Michigander," but while most people use it, no one really likes it, as it makes us sound like a bunch of large waterfowl, and in fact was originally a pejorative, coined by Abraham Lincoln as a jab at Lewis Cass. Whenever you hear someone use it, you'll see they have kind of an awkward, embarrassed expression, like they realize how dumb it sounds, but don't really know a good alternative.

One alternative that's occasionally heard is "Michiganian", but that's a rather awkward word, and so has never really caught on, and I don't think anyone's ever seriously essayed "Michiganan".

I got to thinking about this issue one day, as I've always cringed at "Michigander", and I thought about what residents of other places that end with "n" are called. There are Oregonians, which is fine for them, but as mentioned above, doesn't really work for us. There are Filippinos, but I don't think "Michiganos" is really going to fly. Same thing for "Michiganis", a suffix which sounds cool for Pakistan, but frankly sounds weirder than "Michigander".

Residents of urban areas are often called "urbanites", and while "Michiganite" has had some circulation, it also has never caught on.

So what does work? I think the best suffix for Michigan residents is -er. Lots of cool places use it: Berlin, London, Lisbon; and "Michiganer" just sounds cool. It's close to the term that people are used to, and so should catch on easily. Therefore, I hereby officially proclaim that the proper term for a Michigan resident is "Michiganer". I consider the matter closed.

(By the way, I think Oregonians made a wise choice. No one wants to be an "Oregoner", and "Oregoni" sounds like something you do with paper.)