Thursday, October 14, 2010

in which i eat of the wonka nerds

I've just consumed three mini-nerds boxes in a fit of rage: purple, pink, then purple again. I did it in that order because I like the pink the best but because there was only one pink left I had to offset it by purples, since, afterall, I do not want a purple saturation taste in my mouth. There is too much going on in my mouth as it is right now: a cold sore and two, TWO canker sores. Consequently, I feel like a messy slob. And I know its because of the weather, and the stress blah blah but you may be wondering... why does someone in a fit of rage take the time to consider their nerd order admidst the gulps?

I guess this is not a true fit of rage. I'm sad too. Because because sometimes I'm afraid I believe just anything I read. That I read a book on feminism and animal ethics and everything that I hear makes me think we are all sexist animal abusers. Because somedays I feel like an idiot, and not a good, "ah I am aware of my lack of knowlege so actually I am wise to believe that I am an idiot" idiot-- but the actual jerkish kind who thinks they have shit to say but really dont.

Im sad because I think people play into roles without realizing it... especially in romantic relationships but also in school among educators. Teachers are no better than preachers in that they all love the converted rebel. Once you're in their orbit and actually want to learn well-- no you are immediately unattractive and their interests in you will drop OR never spark in the first place. My advice? Play hard to get because that's all people understand any more.

BESIDES measuring intelligence is bullshit so why doesnt everyone just act like everyone else is extremely bright, because they are. Really they are. We are. Even if I say the dumbest thing, I want someone to challenge me on it. And even if I write something terrible, or vague, or silly, or confusing, or half-assed, I want a teacher to go for it and treat me like someone who wants to learn. Isnt that enough? What is this nonsense where they sit back and try to ascertain "what sort of student you are" -- and then treat you accordingly after they think they've "figured you out"? The danger in this is if enough educators do it, then we start believing it. We will seperate ourselves out into our appropriate types. All because their grad school must of not have emphasised the virtues of empathy and patience. Becuase it takes time and humanity and discusssions of real things unfolding between people. Becuase it's harder to do than to decide who gets into an "inner circle" of knowledge-- dangling your intellect just out of reach of those you teach instead of fellowship and communion with those who just want to figure things out too.
Its rude. Intentional or not.





4 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've definitely encountered teachers who've had the attitude "This material is so high above you and you'll never really understand it." But my experiences say you should show your interest. I didn't really start talking to my favorite professor this semester. I regret my hesitation.

    Then again, he might just be a special teacher. Our professors are human and have egos that they sometimes massage by making their subject material "mysterious and elusive." This is bad. It happens.

    Also, believing everything you read might just mean you understand it. Of course there's a balance that should be applied. But in the end, the more we read the better. Especially if we remember/apply/internalize bits of everything we read. We end up open, versatile, objective, flexible. If it seems like you're changing rapidly, even if you feel like you're going in circles, you're probably growing. : )

    ReplyDelete
  3. NO people throw around that term "balance" and "not to extreme" and its all very strange. Think about it.

    Aristotle says there is virtue in moderation. In fact all the virtues he lists are supposed to be the mean between two excesses (e.g: "courage" is the center of cowardice and rashness). Yet when someone throws out the phrase, "you have to find a balance" you have to wonder where the scale is. If cowadice is one thing to some and caution to others, ones "balance" may be cowardice to others.

    What if you are already in a fascist country? Do you find a balance of fascism and repressive control? Or do you throw away the balance and have a revolution?

    You never know how bad off you are until you change and actually see from a different place. If I am an animal abuser, do I only moderately abuse animals, or do I eschew it completely?

    "Finding a balance" speaks to accomodation, and non-logic.
    I say non-logic becuase people love to nibble and pick bouquets from their favorite lines of arguments, all to buttress and legitimize themselves. The result: uncommitted half-truths, the selective hearing of education.

    "Finding a balance" is passively living peacefully just for the sake of ease and assimilation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If I'm in a fascist country I'd still consider a steady, balanced departure from the political right. If I instigated a total revolution then chances are good (looking at history) that the new government would just polarize in the opposite direction. Towards Communism.

    I can call hitting a dog with newspaper 'abuse' and burning a cat's whiskers 'discipline.' No matter what words you use there is a balance between abuse and discipline (or abuse and some other variable or variables). So when somebody says "be balanced in all things" I don't think they mean "be balanced in abuse and murder and be a moderate criminal." They're referring to the spectrum that these things lie on.

    I'm not sure I agree that "finding a balance" necessitates living passively.

    ReplyDelete