I feel disconnected from my past.
I don't always listen to people as well as I could.
I want to be totally at ease with another human being.
I can never finish work because I have horrible work habits.
I often think that I am a sham--some people for some reason think highly of me despite the fact that I've not completed anything of real significance.
I may not have the capabilities to do the only kinds of things that could give my life meaning.
All the worrying I do isn't worth much if I don't do anything with my life.
I fear that I will never live the kind of life I want to live.
Sometimes, when I think about all the things I could do with my life, nothing seems important enough to be worth doing.
I do not know what to do with my life.
I miss my father.
I expect too much out of people and situations and often end up disappointed.
I expect every moment to be extraordinary--I need every moment to be extraordinary for it to seem worthwhile--but life is not constantly extraordinary.
I do not feel like an adult.
I feel days slipping away from me now and I fear I am not living them well enough.
I worry that the only way to be truly content is to detach yourself from desire, but I do not have the courage to try this.
I am going to sleep.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Thursday, October 12, 2006
work in progress
These waves of panic keep washing over me.
They're more like explosions that start in my stomach and then radiate through my body, unsettling and unfocusing me so that I just want to run and hide from everything I have to do because I feel like there's no way I can finish everything and make all the decisions I have to make at the same time.
But then the explosion radiates out of me, and things settle and refocus a bit, and I realize that of course I can't finish everything, not tonight, not in a week, not in two; but I've got far more time than this. I'm not sure where I got the idea that I have to finish everything and make all my decisions immediately. This makes everything seem much more urgent (and panic-inducing) than it really is.
The best thing I could do for myself right now is to limit my "time wasting" and just get more done. The only way I'll feel better about things is if I start to finish some things--if I'm at least working towards finishing some things. Granted, some of what I have to finish (like grading 90 papers) I just don't want to do; but I have to. But if I get caught up in the panic, I won't get anything done, and this'll just make the panic worse. But I'll feel better if I get 8 papers done today, and have 82 to do tomorrow instead of 90. It's not finishing, but I'd be better off than I am right now. Most of the things I have to do right now are long-term projects, and I've got to start seeing them that way.
These kids just came into Krannert, don't know from where, they seem to be guided by some college students and at least one adult...one of the younger ones turned and stared at me for a few moments as he was walking through the lobby, I saw him pointing as he was talking to his friend, and then he gave me a quick wave. I waved back. Sometimes the smallest things like this are enough to take you out of your head and put your problems, such as they are, in perspective. I'm going to have to start hiring kids to walk by me and wave every 30 minutes or so.
We are all always works in progress and we will never be complete.
They're more like explosions that start in my stomach and then radiate through my body, unsettling and unfocusing me so that I just want to run and hide from everything I have to do because I feel like there's no way I can finish everything and make all the decisions I have to make at the same time.
But then the explosion radiates out of me, and things settle and refocus a bit, and I realize that of course I can't finish everything, not tonight, not in a week, not in two; but I've got far more time than this. I'm not sure where I got the idea that I have to finish everything and make all my decisions immediately. This makes everything seem much more urgent (and panic-inducing) than it really is.
The best thing I could do for myself right now is to limit my "time wasting" and just get more done. The only way I'll feel better about things is if I start to finish some things--if I'm at least working towards finishing some things. Granted, some of what I have to finish (like grading 90 papers) I just don't want to do; but I have to. But if I get caught up in the panic, I won't get anything done, and this'll just make the panic worse. But I'll feel better if I get 8 papers done today, and have 82 to do tomorrow instead of 90. It's not finishing, but I'd be better off than I am right now. Most of the things I have to do right now are long-term projects, and I've got to start seeing them that way.
These kids just came into Krannert, don't know from where, they seem to be guided by some college students and at least one adult...one of the younger ones turned and stared at me for a few moments as he was walking through the lobby, I saw him pointing as he was talking to his friend, and then he gave me a quick wave. I waved back. Sometimes the smallest things like this are enough to take you out of your head and put your problems, such as they are, in perspective. I'm going to have to start hiring kids to walk by me and wave every 30 minutes or so.
We are all always works in progress and we will never be complete.
spinning
My mind is spinning tonight. Maybe it's always spinning, maybe it's not just tonight.
A wonderful comment on my last post. Just today I have flip-flopped on the Harvard/Chicago decision about three times. I found out that, should I go to Chicago, I'd be able to TA for world religions next semester by driving down here one day a week to teach, which means that I'd have a lot more money every month and I'd gain more teaching experience. In Boston, I wouldn't be teaching, and I'd probably have to end up running more credit card debt in order to live comfortably and enjoy my time there. Though finances aren't the number one priority here, they're still a factor in the decision. But, as sarah d pointed out, it won't do me much good to be in Chicago if I'm drifting there. I need to have a solid academic reason to go there. What I need to do, in the next week or so, is determine whether there could be an academic reason. One of the religious studies professors (the one with whom I'd be working on the world religions course next term) just got his PhD from U. Chicago, and so I think he could set me up with people there and help me to get some kind of "visiting" status. Their Divinity School is considered the best place to study religion, generally, in the country, and they've got some great people there, so one option would be to go there and sit in on some of the world religions (or religion and society) courses taught by these "famous" people. This probably wouldn't directly apply to work in religion and education, but I'd learn quite a bit more about world religions, which is something I've been wanting to do. I have a feeling that, after talking to some people, the decision will be much easier to make, or at least the terms on which I have to make the decision will be much clearer.
I finished the dissertation narrative for the fellowship proposal today. I finished a draft of it, anyway. I've sent it off to my advisor to see what he thinks. The idea is similar to what we'd talked about before, but it's rooted in an entirely different philosophical framework (I'm not even sure I had a framework before). The idea I have, essentially, is this: Bergmann (who we've been reading in my social philosophy course, who's been so inspiring to me lately) proposes this conception of freedom that is based in people's experiences of being free. He claims that people feel most free when they are engaged in activities in which they come alive, feel a sort of harmony, feel most themselves. He uses the term "identification" to describe the experience; my professor uses the term "self-enactment." This means that we feel free when we are performing actions that enable us to realize an authentic sense of self. I think most of us have had experiences like this, where you get lost in your work or your creative endeavors, where you feel a sense of exuberance or vitality in what you're doing.
Bergmann says that this is what freedom is. I want to take this concept and apply it to the idea of religious freedom. We normally think of this as the ability to practice your religion without being hindered. However, under Bergmann's conception, religious freedom would come to mean practicing a religion (or, more generally, embracing a worldview, religious or not) that you can identify with, that fits for you. This is not the same thing as our traditional notion of religious freedom. Under the traditional notion, you could practice a religion without hindrance that in fact stifles you, keeps you from coming alive, doesn't seem to fit (maybe you do this because of family pressure or social convention). Under Bergmann's notion, you could experience religious freedom even if you were hindered in your practice as long as you were practicing a worldview that felt right, that gave you that sense of exuberance.
So if we accept and value this "new" understanding of religious freedom, then we would want to give people the opportunity to experience this. However, it would require that people have the opportunity to enter into a variety of worldviews--the only way to determine which worldview is self-enacting for a person would be for that person to try to live it, since with the living would come the experience. Yet most people are not exposed to a diversity of worldviews within their families or local communities, especially not in a "lived" or "livable" sense. They could, though, be exposed to these worldviews in the educational system.
I would propose, then, that we establish a sort of "worldview education" in schools that would seriously expose students to different ways of looking at the world with the goal of enabling them to determine which worldview(s) are most self-enacting. A world religions course would be one way of doing this, though it would be a very different kind of world religions course than those typically offered in high schools, colleges, and universities. The typical world religions course approaches the religions from a historical and social viewpoint, with the aim being to learn the key beliefs, rituals, myths, doctrine, and social arrangements of the religions. This "new" world religions course, with a goal of enabling religious freedom, or religious self-enactment, or worldview identification, would have to teach these key beliefs, rituals, etc., along the way, but it would focus on offering lived experiences of these worldviews to the students. The method would involve leading students to "pass over" into different worldviews to see if elements of that view were self-enacting. Students would be encouraged to construct a worldview that seemed to fit for them, with the understanding that what fits for them could change over time.
The end product of my dissertation, then, would be a curriculum for this kind of world religions course (or worldview course) that could be shopped around to various educational administrations in the hopes of having it implemented in policy. Future work would involve observations of these sorts of courses to see how they play out, so that we could determine both what works best in terms of pedagogy and what impact the courses tend to have on students.
That's my idea. Does it make sense? In the dissertation, I'd have to do a lot of work to justify Bergmann's conception of freedom over others, to make a convincing argument that we should value this new conception of religious freedom, and to make the case that a course (or set of courses) in which students reflected on their worldviews, possibly modifying them, would not in fact violate the more traditional sense of religious freedom, which is seen as being protected by the First Amendment (which says in part that Congress shall pass no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion). However, I think I could do all of this, and my hope in actually proposing a curriculum for a worldview course would be that I could show that my theoretical argument for the value of my conception of religious freedom could actually be turned into a concrete educational practice.
We'll see what my advisor thinks.
A wonderful comment on my last post. Just today I have flip-flopped on the Harvard/Chicago decision about three times. I found out that, should I go to Chicago, I'd be able to TA for world religions next semester by driving down here one day a week to teach, which means that I'd have a lot more money every month and I'd gain more teaching experience. In Boston, I wouldn't be teaching, and I'd probably have to end up running more credit card debt in order to live comfortably and enjoy my time there. Though finances aren't the number one priority here, they're still a factor in the decision. But, as sarah d pointed out, it won't do me much good to be in Chicago if I'm drifting there. I need to have a solid academic reason to go there. What I need to do, in the next week or so, is determine whether there could be an academic reason. One of the religious studies professors (the one with whom I'd be working on the world religions course next term) just got his PhD from U. Chicago, and so I think he could set me up with people there and help me to get some kind of "visiting" status. Their Divinity School is considered the best place to study religion, generally, in the country, and they've got some great people there, so one option would be to go there and sit in on some of the world religions (or religion and society) courses taught by these "famous" people. This probably wouldn't directly apply to work in religion and education, but I'd learn quite a bit more about world religions, which is something I've been wanting to do. I have a feeling that, after talking to some people, the decision will be much easier to make, or at least the terms on which I have to make the decision will be much clearer.
I finished the dissertation narrative for the fellowship proposal today. I finished a draft of it, anyway. I've sent it off to my advisor to see what he thinks. The idea is similar to what we'd talked about before, but it's rooted in an entirely different philosophical framework (I'm not even sure I had a framework before). The idea I have, essentially, is this: Bergmann (who we've been reading in my social philosophy course, who's been so inspiring to me lately) proposes this conception of freedom that is based in people's experiences of being free. He claims that people feel most free when they are engaged in activities in which they come alive, feel a sort of harmony, feel most themselves. He uses the term "identification" to describe the experience; my professor uses the term "self-enactment." This means that we feel free when we are performing actions that enable us to realize an authentic sense of self. I think most of us have had experiences like this, where you get lost in your work or your creative endeavors, where you feel a sense of exuberance or vitality in what you're doing.
Bergmann says that this is what freedom is. I want to take this concept and apply it to the idea of religious freedom. We normally think of this as the ability to practice your religion without being hindered. However, under Bergmann's conception, religious freedom would come to mean practicing a religion (or, more generally, embracing a worldview, religious or not) that you can identify with, that fits for you. This is not the same thing as our traditional notion of religious freedom. Under the traditional notion, you could practice a religion without hindrance that in fact stifles you, keeps you from coming alive, doesn't seem to fit (maybe you do this because of family pressure or social convention). Under Bergmann's notion, you could experience religious freedom even if you were hindered in your practice as long as you were practicing a worldview that felt right, that gave you that sense of exuberance.
So if we accept and value this "new" understanding of religious freedom, then we would want to give people the opportunity to experience this. However, it would require that people have the opportunity to enter into a variety of worldviews--the only way to determine which worldview is self-enacting for a person would be for that person to try to live it, since with the living would come the experience. Yet most people are not exposed to a diversity of worldviews within their families or local communities, especially not in a "lived" or "livable" sense. They could, though, be exposed to these worldviews in the educational system.
I would propose, then, that we establish a sort of "worldview education" in schools that would seriously expose students to different ways of looking at the world with the goal of enabling them to determine which worldview(s) are most self-enacting. A world religions course would be one way of doing this, though it would be a very different kind of world religions course than those typically offered in high schools, colleges, and universities. The typical world religions course approaches the religions from a historical and social viewpoint, with the aim being to learn the key beliefs, rituals, myths, doctrine, and social arrangements of the religions. This "new" world religions course, with a goal of enabling religious freedom, or religious self-enactment, or worldview identification, would have to teach these key beliefs, rituals, etc., along the way, but it would focus on offering lived experiences of these worldviews to the students. The method would involve leading students to "pass over" into different worldviews to see if elements of that view were self-enacting. Students would be encouraged to construct a worldview that seemed to fit for them, with the understanding that what fits for them could change over time.
The end product of my dissertation, then, would be a curriculum for this kind of world religions course (or worldview course) that could be shopped around to various educational administrations in the hopes of having it implemented in policy. Future work would involve observations of these sorts of courses to see how they play out, so that we could determine both what works best in terms of pedagogy and what impact the courses tend to have on students.
That's my idea. Does it make sense? In the dissertation, I'd have to do a lot of work to justify Bergmann's conception of freedom over others, to make a convincing argument that we should value this new conception of religious freedom, and to make the case that a course (or set of courses) in which students reflected on their worldviews, possibly modifying them, would not in fact violate the more traditional sense of religious freedom, which is seen as being protected by the First Amendment (which says in part that Congress shall pass no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion). However, I think I could do all of this, and my hope in actually proposing a curriculum for a worldview course would be that I could show that my theoretical argument for the value of my conception of religious freedom could actually be turned into a concrete educational practice.
We'll see what my advisor thinks.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
inertia
Another too late night with too little work done, or so it seems, and I wonder if I have the fortitude to break my bad habits. I see them so clearly but I continue to do them and I can't really explain why I do them except that it's easier to continue to do what I normally do than to do something new. Behavioral inertia. Psychological inertia. When I say "bad habits," I mean just habits that are keeping me from doing things that would bring me deeper fulfillment. Keeping me from doing things that I supposedly highly value.
But I wonder: if one really highly values something, then wouldn't she be moved to act on it? I might say I value social justice, or teaching about religion, or guiding people in their processes of meaning making and worldview formation (and I would say I value all of these things), but if I valued them deeply, wouldn't I want to spend more time working to alleviate injustice, working to develop innovative and effective teaching methods with religion, and working to understand the process of meaning making? Why is it so difficult to focus on the things that I deeply value?
I think the answer is (at least partially) that these are such abstract things to value that there's no single concrete thing I can do to "work on them." There are little things I could do that would be part of working towards them, but I think it's difficult to be motivated when it's hard to connect what you're doing directly to your goal. Oh, so if I read this 500-page book then I'll be able to write more effectively about some small aspect of meaning making? I have a tendency not to want to do things that are "small." But, of course, the kind of goals I have, the kind of projects that I think will bring me lasting fulfillment throughout my life, are huge. I will never fully achieve them. I will always be working towards them.
Inertia works both ways though--harder to start, but it's also harder to stop.
And then there's friendship. I was reading some class notes tonight discussing Nietzsche and Bergmann, and they included the point that to be self-perfected (or self-enacted), you have to have a supportive social environment. That culture and society matter greatly in supporting the achievement of a free self. Part of this is having supportive friends. But the notes said that some people don't choose their friends very well, largely because they have a misguided notion of friendship. Differing notions of friendship are things I don't know much about, but I've always been interested in finding out more, especially because of the connection of friendship to love, which has always intrigued me personally--how the hell can we understand how the different kinds of love work? What are we actually talking about when we talk about love? Are there ways to foster truly loving relationships--is it not as mysterious as we sometimes make it out to be? The best friendships are, I think, a form of love--not an "in love," really--but love nonetheless.
But what are ideal friendships? Does this differ from person to person? For me, the best friendships I have are characterized by a sort of ease, a free flow. Things just work. And they work in part because of a certain level of safety in the relationship. By this, I mean that, with my best friends, I know that they're going to stay my friends no matter what I do (within reason). And this gives me a sort of license to be myself, to act freely, without having to monitor what I say or do through their perspectives. This isn't to say that I don't think about their perspectives, but just that I don't have to watch what I'm saying or watch what I'm doing. I can be myself. This means that, around my closest friends, I act pretty much the same way. I'll act similarly with my best friends in Tampa as I will with my best friends here as I will with my best friends from college, etc. But I will sometimes act differently with people who are only acquiantances or more superficial friends--there's a level of diplomacy or censoring with these people that I don't have with my best friends. There's also often a level of politeness there that isn't there with my best friends. Because with that safety in the relationship comes the security to challenge. I can "call my friends out" (and they can call me out) in a way that I would not be comfortable doing with an acquaintance. This might seem odd, because you have less to lose with an acquaintance than with a friend (you barely know the acquaintance and they're not as important to you); but in fact you have far more to lose with an acquaintance, because there's no safety in the relationship (such as it is with an acquaintance). With your best friends, there's not much to lose at all, since you know you can challenge them and the friendship will sustain.
How do I pick my friends? I have absolutely no idea. When I survey my friends, I can see few obvious connections between them. There's no "type" here. But maybe there is, actually. Because I think what characterizes those with whom I'm the closest is a passionate vitality. A drive to do something extraordinary. To live extraordinarily. This is probably key for me. But I know some people who are trying to do extraordinary things with whom I'm not best friends. So it must be more than that. Sense of humor is important. Thoughtfulness helps. But of course these traits describe plenty of people, too. And it's not as if all my friends have exactly the same combination of characteristics. So it gets mysterious. And I think to figure out how I pick my friends would be difficult enough; but then imagine also having to figure out how my friends pick me. Friendships are two-way streets, after all, so you've got to be drawn to them and they've got to be drawn to you.
I'm leaning more tonight towards going to Harvard. Some conversations with people tonight pushed me in that direction, though earlier today I would've said I was leaning towards Chicago. The fact is that I want to go to Chicago for social reasons and I want to go to Boston for academic/career reasons. So I've got a viable set of reasons for going to each place. Do I have to choose what's most important to me? Friends or career? Of course, it's not as harsh as this. Because my friends would be here when I got back from Boston; it's not as if going away for 4 months will bring the end of my most important friendships here. It's not even as if it will stunt those friendships, because some of my best friendships have developed greatly when I wasn't in the same place as my friends. Plus, my friends could visit me; I could visit here; and I'd have the chance to develop stronger friendships with people I know in the Northeast (friends in New York, for instance, from whom I wouldn't be that far) and perhaps even make some new friends. If I go to Boston, there's a pretty clear plan: work with the program at Harvard, sit in on classes, meet with the students in the program, etc. I'd also have a special status and a direct connection (with the director of the program) who could furnish me with a letter of recommendation at some point. I don't have a plan for Chicago right now, and I'm afraid I'd be a bit aimless if I went there (though I probably need to do some more looking into what the options there would be).
My right eyelid has been twitching a little lately. I wonder if anyone's noticing. And I wonder why it's happening. Quitting smoking? Too much caffeine? Not enough caffeine? The beginning of a massive facial tic?
I think inertia is a fact of life, but I want to establish it with some habits that will fulfill me, and this means fighting it for now--slowing my habits, stopping--before I can get moving again.
But I wonder: if one really highly values something, then wouldn't she be moved to act on it? I might say I value social justice, or teaching about religion, or guiding people in their processes of meaning making and worldview formation (and I would say I value all of these things), but if I valued them deeply, wouldn't I want to spend more time working to alleviate injustice, working to develop innovative and effective teaching methods with religion, and working to understand the process of meaning making? Why is it so difficult to focus on the things that I deeply value?
I think the answer is (at least partially) that these are such abstract things to value that there's no single concrete thing I can do to "work on them." There are little things I could do that would be part of working towards them, but I think it's difficult to be motivated when it's hard to connect what you're doing directly to your goal. Oh, so if I read this 500-page book then I'll be able to write more effectively about some small aspect of meaning making? I have a tendency not to want to do things that are "small." But, of course, the kind of goals I have, the kind of projects that I think will bring me lasting fulfillment throughout my life, are huge. I will never fully achieve them. I will always be working towards them.
Inertia works both ways though--harder to start, but it's also harder to stop.
And then there's friendship. I was reading some class notes tonight discussing Nietzsche and Bergmann, and they included the point that to be self-perfected (or self-enacted), you have to have a supportive social environment. That culture and society matter greatly in supporting the achievement of a free self. Part of this is having supportive friends. But the notes said that some people don't choose their friends very well, largely because they have a misguided notion of friendship. Differing notions of friendship are things I don't know much about, but I've always been interested in finding out more, especially because of the connection of friendship to love, which has always intrigued me personally--how the hell can we understand how the different kinds of love work? What are we actually talking about when we talk about love? Are there ways to foster truly loving relationships--is it not as mysterious as we sometimes make it out to be? The best friendships are, I think, a form of love--not an "in love," really--but love nonetheless.
But what are ideal friendships? Does this differ from person to person? For me, the best friendships I have are characterized by a sort of ease, a free flow. Things just work. And they work in part because of a certain level of safety in the relationship. By this, I mean that, with my best friends, I know that they're going to stay my friends no matter what I do (within reason). And this gives me a sort of license to be myself, to act freely, without having to monitor what I say or do through their perspectives. This isn't to say that I don't think about their perspectives, but just that I don't have to watch what I'm saying or watch what I'm doing. I can be myself. This means that, around my closest friends, I act pretty much the same way. I'll act similarly with my best friends in Tampa as I will with my best friends here as I will with my best friends from college, etc. But I will sometimes act differently with people who are only acquiantances or more superficial friends--there's a level of diplomacy or censoring with these people that I don't have with my best friends. There's also often a level of politeness there that isn't there with my best friends. Because with that safety in the relationship comes the security to challenge. I can "call my friends out" (and they can call me out) in a way that I would not be comfortable doing with an acquaintance. This might seem odd, because you have less to lose with an acquaintance than with a friend (you barely know the acquaintance and they're not as important to you); but in fact you have far more to lose with an acquaintance, because there's no safety in the relationship (such as it is with an acquaintance). With your best friends, there's not much to lose at all, since you know you can challenge them and the friendship will sustain.
How do I pick my friends? I have absolutely no idea. When I survey my friends, I can see few obvious connections between them. There's no "type" here. But maybe there is, actually. Because I think what characterizes those with whom I'm the closest is a passionate vitality. A drive to do something extraordinary. To live extraordinarily. This is probably key for me. But I know some people who are trying to do extraordinary things with whom I'm not best friends. So it must be more than that. Sense of humor is important. Thoughtfulness helps. But of course these traits describe plenty of people, too. And it's not as if all my friends have exactly the same combination of characteristics. So it gets mysterious. And I think to figure out how I pick my friends would be difficult enough; but then imagine also having to figure out how my friends pick me. Friendships are two-way streets, after all, so you've got to be drawn to them and they've got to be drawn to you.
I'm leaning more tonight towards going to Harvard. Some conversations with people tonight pushed me in that direction, though earlier today I would've said I was leaning towards Chicago. The fact is that I want to go to Chicago for social reasons and I want to go to Boston for academic/career reasons. So I've got a viable set of reasons for going to each place. Do I have to choose what's most important to me? Friends or career? Of course, it's not as harsh as this. Because my friends would be here when I got back from Boston; it's not as if going away for 4 months will bring the end of my most important friendships here. It's not even as if it will stunt those friendships, because some of my best friendships have developed greatly when I wasn't in the same place as my friends. Plus, my friends could visit me; I could visit here; and I'd have the chance to develop stronger friendships with people I know in the Northeast (friends in New York, for instance, from whom I wouldn't be that far) and perhaps even make some new friends. If I go to Boston, there's a pretty clear plan: work with the program at Harvard, sit in on classes, meet with the students in the program, etc. I'd also have a special status and a direct connection (with the director of the program) who could furnish me with a letter of recommendation at some point. I don't have a plan for Chicago right now, and I'm afraid I'd be a bit aimless if I went there (though I probably need to do some more looking into what the options there would be).
My right eyelid has been twitching a little lately. I wonder if anyone's noticing. And I wonder why it's happening. Quitting smoking? Too much caffeine? Not enough caffeine? The beginning of a massive facial tic?
I think inertia is a fact of life, but I want to establish it with some habits that will fulfill me, and this means fighting it for now--slowing my habits, stopping--before I can get moving again.
Monday, October 09, 2006
sense of peace
I feel a sense of peace at my center, and it's unsettling because I'm not used to it quite yet. I have some sort of plans for every weekend from now until the first weekend of December, and I'm hoping that this will allow me to work extra hard during the week. I'm going to try to finish two papers, one proposal which is also a paper, two annotated bibliographies, and a fellowship proposal by November 1. I then have another paper draft due a week after that. I've decided that it may be impossible to do all of this in that amount of time, but I'm going to give it a try. We'll see how much I can get done when I have concrete goals and a concrete deadline.
Some of you have said that you like the writing here, and that means so much to me. More than you'd probably think. I would love (LOVE) to write essays for magazines or literary journals (the kind of things you'd see in Best American Essays), and I see some of this as practice towards that goal. I've got a ways to go--I think there are elements of my personality that don't come across here (like humor, for instance), and I think I need to do a better job of connecting my personal stories to feelings or situations that would resonate with a number of people. The best kinds of essays, I think, are the ones that richly describe some local or personal situation in such a way that the reader can entirely identify with it or feel deeply moved by it. This takes a lot of work, and I wonder if I'm capable of doing it. I may not have the knack. But I'd like to try.
I am so happy to be alive right now, and I hope this feeling maintains for a while.
Some of you have said that you like the writing here, and that means so much to me. More than you'd probably think. I would love (LOVE) to write essays for magazines or literary journals (the kind of things you'd see in Best American Essays), and I see some of this as practice towards that goal. I've got a ways to go--I think there are elements of my personality that don't come across here (like humor, for instance), and I think I need to do a better job of connecting my personal stories to feelings or situations that would resonate with a number of people. The best kinds of essays, I think, are the ones that richly describe some local or personal situation in such a way that the reader can entirely identify with it or feel deeply moved by it. This takes a lot of work, and I wonder if I'm capable of doing it. I may not have the knack. But I'd like to try.
I am so happy to be alive right now, and I hope this feeling maintains for a while.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
quick thoughts
Here are some quick thoughts I'm having as I'm taking a break from reading. I hope to post something longer tonight. I. bet. you. can't. wait.
Kopi is not a good place to read because it's just too damn dark in here. It's also not a good place to study if you're a little sleepy for just the same reason. Aroma is incredibly bright--a great place to read--but it feels more cramped to me, and the atmosphere isn't as relaxed there. Also, I don't think it has character like Kopi does. This is all making me think that I need to find a new place to study, at least if I want to read or write seriously. Maybe...the library? The library's depressing to me for some reason, maybe because it's a room full of people who don't seem to be having any fun. They don't even seem to be enjoying what they're studying. But it's probably the best place for me to get real work done. I might try working in the apartment, but I sometimes find that difficult, perhaps because I see home as a place to relax, not as a place to work. I don't want to bring my worlds crashing together. There'a also my office, of course, but that seems so isolating to me. I think I either need to start using the library more or find a way to get work done at home.
That wasn't that quick, was it?
I wish I had a group of friends who all knew each other that stretched back a number of years.
I wish I had a community here.
But you know what? I'm pretty happy with what I have, and I've come to appreciate it. I also realize that most of the things that "I wish were different" are things that I could do something about. If I really wanted a community, then I could get more involved in a community, even if it took some work. It'd probably help to settle in somewhere--when you leave somewhere every few years, it's going to be hard to form a lasting community or to become part of one.
I must like flitting from place to place every so often, making friends here and there--it's been a nice way to get to know a lot of people, even if it has kept me from a consistent community.
I need a balance, of course. Just like in everything. Working on it. Maybe I need to stay here next year. But of course, just because I stay doesn't mean that other people are going to stay. That's the thing about being a student--people (you, others) are always coming and going.
There are two people sitting near me in Kopi. The guy works at ER in Urbana, the girl I see around at various coffee places. I've actually spoken to the guy once, at ER, when I was wearing my Arizona shirt, and he said that his sister went to Arizona. I'd said I was just there, wasn't it nice, and that was about it. Both of these people seem pretty damn cool.
This supercool group of five, three guys and two girls, just walked by Kopi. I'm sitting by the window. I see the world from the window. They were on their way to somewhere. They were an attractive bunch.
I would like to try to write a poem, but I don't know if I have it in me. I mean, I know I have it in me to write something cliched and crappy, but I'd like to write something kind of poignant. Maybe I'll be inspired.
I was a little sleepy before but I think this tea is waking me up.
I am looking forward to the coming weeks. They will be hectic. And I have a lot to figure out. Harvard? Chicago? Here? It's nice to be able to make this decision, but I don't want to make it on a whim.
It would make me sad, but it'd do me good to be by myself for a while, I think. I mean to go somewhere new but exciting, where I maybe know one or two people, but where I have to make my way on my own anew.
Or maybe it'd do me some good to really strengthen my friendships here.
Maybe they'd both be good.
bye for now.
Kopi is not a good place to read because it's just too damn dark in here. It's also not a good place to study if you're a little sleepy for just the same reason. Aroma is incredibly bright--a great place to read--but it feels more cramped to me, and the atmosphere isn't as relaxed there. Also, I don't think it has character like Kopi does. This is all making me think that I need to find a new place to study, at least if I want to read or write seriously. Maybe...the library? The library's depressing to me for some reason, maybe because it's a room full of people who don't seem to be having any fun. They don't even seem to be enjoying what they're studying. But it's probably the best place for me to get real work done. I might try working in the apartment, but I sometimes find that difficult, perhaps because I see home as a place to relax, not as a place to work. I don't want to bring my worlds crashing together. There'a also my office, of course, but that seems so isolating to me. I think I either need to start using the library more or find a way to get work done at home.
That wasn't that quick, was it?
I wish I had a group of friends who all knew each other that stretched back a number of years.
I wish I had a community here.
But you know what? I'm pretty happy with what I have, and I've come to appreciate it. I also realize that most of the things that "I wish were different" are things that I could do something about. If I really wanted a community, then I could get more involved in a community, even if it took some work. It'd probably help to settle in somewhere--when you leave somewhere every few years, it's going to be hard to form a lasting community or to become part of one.
I must like flitting from place to place every so often, making friends here and there--it's been a nice way to get to know a lot of people, even if it has kept me from a consistent community.
I need a balance, of course. Just like in everything. Working on it. Maybe I need to stay here next year. But of course, just because I stay doesn't mean that other people are going to stay. That's the thing about being a student--people (you, others) are always coming and going.
There are two people sitting near me in Kopi. The guy works at ER in Urbana, the girl I see around at various coffee places. I've actually spoken to the guy once, at ER, when I was wearing my Arizona shirt, and he said that his sister went to Arizona. I'd said I was just there, wasn't it nice, and that was about it. Both of these people seem pretty damn cool.
This supercool group of five, three guys and two girls, just walked by Kopi. I'm sitting by the window. I see the world from the window. They were on their way to somewhere. They were an attractive bunch.
I would like to try to write a poem, but I don't know if I have it in me. I mean, I know I have it in me to write something cliched and crappy, but I'd like to write something kind of poignant. Maybe I'll be inspired.
I was a little sleepy before but I think this tea is waking me up.
I am looking forward to the coming weeks. They will be hectic. And I have a lot to figure out. Harvard? Chicago? Here? It's nice to be able to make this decision, but I don't want to make it on a whim.
It would make me sad, but it'd do me good to be by myself for a while, I think. I mean to go somewhere new but exciting, where I maybe know one or two people, but where I have to make my way on my own anew.
Or maybe it'd do me some good to really strengthen my friendships here.
Maybe they'd both be good.
bye for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)