The other important development in my recent life is that the iPod I have been using went completely kaput. And so I was thinking that I'll go against my central tendencies and actually BUY A PIECE OF TECHNOLOGICAL GADGETRY FOR MYSELF. Something I have not done in years. Think about it. I have never bought myself an iPod or a cell phone. I guess I did buy myself a laptop in the summer. But that is a cinquennial sort of thing. I also bought myself a digital camera at some point (3 years ago?). Anyway my main point is that the new iPod shuffle (the only model that makes sense for me, given that I only ever listen to podcasts and I am unwilling to spend money on functions I don't use, like a colour screen) is TOTALLY USELESS FOR ME!! Can You guess why? No, You can't. The reason it is useless is that the controls are all in the headphone cord. And those iPod earbuds fall out of my ears!! I can't wear them! How do people run in those things? I don't understand it.

So anyway I'm looking for a 2nd gen iPod nano on ebay.

Great story, huh?

So every guy I've met so far in life has in some way been fatally flawed. Some of them are too arrogant, some of them are too intellectual, some of them are totally selfish, some are too submissive, some of them are too conservative. Even if they are great in every other way, there is a fatal flaw (just like protagonists in Greek tragedies, is what I'm saying) that makes a long-term relationship impossible.* So here is what sucks: what sucks is when there is nothing at all wrong with the man. He is smart, and calm, and funny, and attractive. And his fatal flaw is that he isn't into me.

I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU, PERSON I'M TALKING ABOUT, YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT.

* This is sort of a corollary to Savage's law: "Every relationship you are in will fail, until one doesn't".

Here are my recent thoughts on dating in NY vs PL.

In Poland, people's visions of relationships are generally such that one person complements the other. The man is emotionally stunted (just as an example) and the woman is dramatically expressive. The man is the thinker, the woman doesn't think--she FEELS. The man makes money, the woman makes things (including herself, and him, and whatever) beautiful. I'm not saying that these are the relationships that work and thrive, I'm just saying that in the relationship-seeking stage, people think they want someone who is their opposite, to supply to the table what they themselves don't bring. Completeness in a human being comes from a relationship with someone whose qualities complement one's own.

In New York (and possibly other regions of North America) people want someone who is JUST LIKE THEM. They want a lifestyle match, but they also want an attitude match, a match in preferences for speech tone, in affective expression, in intellectualism, in athleticism.

I say these things not only from personal experience (in disappointing men's expectations in Poland, mainly, ha) but also based on explicitly stated goals on internet dating sites.

"If you are unfortunate enough to find yourself the victim of the elevator being stuck, please try to remain calm."

1. Wow. How much molly-coddling do we really need at this university.

2. Doesn't "the victim of" make it sound like the elevator has agency? Why isn't there a horror movie about malevolent elevators? It could be called "The Lift of Death". Which is ambiguous and so a little poetic. Or "Deathshaft," which is quite literal.

Fahrenheit 451

What I found amusing about this novel is that in all its vision about how different things would be in the future (some of which, NB, I perceive as coming true), there were some things that were so clearly and completely NORMAL that their change could not even be envisioned. One example is the idea of marriage, which is very much still at 1950s model of marriage (he works, she is at home, she has his last name, there are no gay couples...). My favourite example of this, though, comes near the end of the book when Montag meets with the other bookmen, and they talk about how the knowledge they have in their heads, books memorized verbatim, will be passed on to and through their children. The hilarious thing, of course, is that all these solitary heroes, these survivors, this last hope of humankind, are men. One wonders where they presume to acquire these humanity-salvaging children.

Also, this is not rich writing.

:


The other thing I have been thinking of filling my blog with are my responses to the books I am reading now that I am on public transportation for at least 2 hours each day. So maybe I'll get to that. With post titles and everything.

I wish I could figure out how to space entries posted on a single day so that they looked more separate. Maybe I'll put in a bunch of carriage returns.

Dang. That didn't work.

A bunch of carriage returns followed by an exclamation point?

Perfect!

I've changed my mind. Perfect would be if there were space below the "Posted by... at" automatic signature. So it'll be exclamation points and returns at the BEGINNING of every post. Or how about just random punctuation.

!

For A's writing class, which I am virtual-auditing, I wrote a response to this article written by Patricia Cohen
and published on February 24, 2009 in The New York Times.

Here it is:

This article raised a few questions in my mind about the state of the humanities at universities today, and about the way people in the humanities are thinking about the state of the humanities at universities today.

A formal criticism that could be leveled at the article concerns purely informational content: we learn that humanities departments are having to cut back on hiring and classes, with the implication that these kinds of trends are not observed in the natural sciences. It is possible, though unstated in this article, that all departments at all universities are in fact having to reduce their resources due to hiring freezes and economic constraints.

If we accede that these shifts relate only to the humanities, there are in any case a couple of points worth disputing.

I am not convinced that the humanities are better equipped than the sciences to answer ethical questions. Science answers questions about the meaning of life and the nature of man just as the humanities do. The two approaches have distinct assumptions about the gravity of certain questions, and about the appropriate methods of seeking answers. To my mind, there is no (perhaps can be no) absolute evidence that one avenue of pursuit is more effectual than the other.

I am convinced, however, that the humanities are more relevant today than they ever have been. It struck me as a singularly odd proposition that the humanities are less relevant to the modern world than are the sciences. If anything, the problems we encounter due to globalization demonstrate that, in fact, we need a better understanding of other humans than we have at the moment. This kind of understanding does not come from technological or industrial progress. What we bring to the markets we expand into may be determined by hard science, but the success or failure of that expansion, on a global scale, will depend on what we know about those markets. We may help build or rebuild nations using knowledge and knowhow from medicine and engineering, but the quality of life for those nations depends on the accuracy of our knowledge about them. The societies we watch develop will be predictable to us—and form partnerships with us—only insofar as their perceptions of the rate, direction, and ultimate goal of that development match ours.

We need to focus on those areas of study that distinguish what is human from what is not; what we have in common from how we differ—and why. Fields such as cultural anthropology, linguistics, religion studies, cultural studies, history—these are the fields most critical to understanding the Other. Our ability to communicate with people different from us hinges on both obvious issues such as language and less explicit, more nuanced prerequisites such as religious and cultural understanding. This ability in turn will improve the match between our expectations of others‘ behaviors and their actual actions. Which seems to be a key to our continued survival.

...



I'm thinking of going to this singles event for listeners of WNYC but they have these idiotic age limits set up. Men from 34 to 47, and women from 32 to 45. The truth is, based on recent experience it's looking like I'm looking for someone younger than 34.* Oh well. Might be fun anyway.

* not that I truly think age is any kind of determinant. which is why I think these sorts of age limits are idiotic.

Today I added PB & J to my oatmeal. I am abashed to have only now invented this.

Two things about dating:

1. One has to somehow discontinue dating one has started. I had forgotten about that.

2. It seems like the men who are going on internet dates with me (who are older than I am) are single not because they are uncool or ugly or whatever but because they are solitary and really quite passive in their pastimes. They're not my type if only because they like to observe the world rather than participating in it.