bow
matisse
it would be much easier to just kill myself now rather than later.
matisse
Bob wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:29:23 -0500, matisse <mat...@ameritech.net>
> wrote:
>
> >it would be much easier to just kill myself now rather than later.
>
> with time, the fear of death may diminish
>
> with time, the desire may fade
>
> catch 22?
>
> no really
>
> it's about choice
>
> seeing what happens -vs- deciding it isn't worth the effort
>
> your choice
you should never take what i write seriously.
matisse
Bob wrote:
> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >you should never take what i write seriously.
>
> then why write it?
>
because i was speaking in metaphor, my dear.
i am walking down a doorway that will most likely destroy me, so i was
thinking i might as well just kill myself now, before it kills me.
of course i do get off on it trying to kill me.
>
> playing with the concept? living vicariously through other's real
> issues?
>
no, of course not. it /is/ a serious issue, while not really being an
issue.
i should write up a manifesto on suicide. been reading some sweet stuff
on the issue.
>
> suicide is a viable option. it shouldn't be taken lightly though.
> there are a lot of things to consider. playing with the idea is silly.
> why bother?
>
i wasn't playing, i was just expressing a feeling, though coded and
concealed.
>
> if I didn't have hope ...
>
> but I do
yes, indeed.
Melia
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, matisse wrote:
> you should never take what i write seriously.
I don't think most people do, FWIW. Could be wrong, of course.
matisse
Bob wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:21:08 -0500, matisse <mat...@ameritech.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bob wrote:
> >
> >> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >you should never take what i write seriously.
> >>
> >> then why write it?
> >
> >because i was speaking in metaphor, my dear.
>
> didn't seem like it and I'm really not anyone's "dear".
> If you need to reply, keep the crap out of your replies. OK?
> Otherwise, I can't take you seriously enough to bother responding.
> >
sorry bob, i will try not to use the words dear, love, or darling when i am
speaking to you. its hard not to, though, because such words are part of my
normal vocab. i called my brother love the other day, and he repeated it and
said you were away too long. it didn't feel right, though. there is only one
person i call that, everyone else is dear or sweetie.
doesn't help to spend three weeks in places where such words are used
frequently, especially in relation to strangers. i loved it.
as to you responding, you know i could care less.
i do like playing pong with you, though.
>
> >i am walking down a doorway that will most likely destroy me, so i was
> >thinking i might as well just kill myself now, before it kills me.
>
> as I said, it is an option.
>
> I've walked through the doorway and want to come back.
>
i can understand that. i have no desire to do anything but remain on the
other side. first time in a long time, kinda nice.
> >
> >of course i do get off on it trying to kill me.
>
> of course. we are both drama queens. thing is, you have very little
> responsibility. if you were gone, who would suffer for that long
> besides your parents?
>
now isn't that a pleasant thought.
you are right, i am completely erasable, and thus should just erase myself
forthright.
> >>
> >> playing with the concept? living vicariously through other's real
> >> issues?
> >>
> >no, of course not. it /is/ a serious issue, while not really being an
> >issue.
>
> ok, then I will ignore your play thoughts from here forward.
>
all right.
> >
> >i should write up a manifesto on suicide. been reading some sweet stuff
> >on the issue.
>
> sure. it would be fun, wouldn't it. heh. as if. i've played the game
> already. i've had the razor in my hand. I've swallowed the pills and
> hoped not to wake. i can't go there now. if i did, there would be no
> coming back. there is a future for those who want it. if you don't ..
>
i played the game many years ago, and all that result was forced
psychotherapy for many years. i learned my lesson, thank you very much.
besides, i like living and i cannot wait to get old!
>
> I do. right now. and it won't be easy but that is my problem.
>
nothing is easy, and i think that if things were easy, life would lose its
charm.
> >
> >> suicide is a viable option. it shouldn't be taken lightly though.
> >> there are a lot of things to consider. playing with the idea is silly.
> >> why bother?
> >
> >i wasn't playing, i was just expressing a feeling, though coded and
> >concealed.
>
> didn't seem that coded. I'm fairly simple though.
>
it wasn't that coded, it just lacked...
>
> >> if I didn't have hope ...
> >>
> >> but I do
> >
> >yes, indeed.
>
> for now
good
pookiehead2
endearment have normally been used to either create a false sense of
familiarity or to belittle the person they are used for, by not
recognizing the other as an individual. Therefore all women are
darlings, dolls, babes, whatever, and all men are hon or honey. Though
referred to as terms of endearment the words should actually be referred
to as a distancing technique used to imply familiarity. I heard my
mother use those words with "customers." When I hear them used in
public I practically retch, as my stomach turns. I'll look though, to
see who the words are coming from, because it tells me two things, they
are out of touch with themselves, or they have no desire to know who the
other person is.
Dav
matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:39063861...@ameritech.net...
>
>
> it would be much easier to just kill myself now rather than later.
>
Patrick Vest
matisse wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:29:23 -0500, matisse <mat...@ameritech.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >it would be much easier to just kill myself now rather than later.
> >
> > with time, the fear of death may diminish
> >
> > with time, the desire may fade
> >
> > catch 22?
> >
> > no really
> >
> > it's about choice
> >
> > seeing what happens -vs- deciding it isn't worth the effort
> >
> > your choice
>
> you should never take what i write seriously.
Wait a minute, if I never take what you write seriously, that means I
shouldn't take this post seriously, which means I should take what you
write seriously.
Pat...I guess I'll be planning the Matisse suicide intervention. Damn it
there goes my weekend.
matisse
pookiehead2 wrote:
interesting psychological analysis.
i am sorry that terms of endearment cause a retching desire in you.
i would also suggest that you don't go to ireland.
J
matisse
Patrick Vest wrote:
> matisse wrote:
>
> > Bob wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:29:23 -0500, matisse <mat...@ameritech.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >it would be much easier to just kill myself now rather than later.
> > >
> > > with time, the fear of death may diminish
> > >
> > > with time, the desire may fade
> > >
> > > catch 22?
> > >
> > > no really
> > >
> > > it's about choice
> > >
> > > seeing what happens -vs- deciding it isn't worth the effort
> > >
> > > your choice
> >
> > you should never take what i write seriously.
>
> Wait a minute, if I never take what you write seriously, that means I
> shouldn't take this post seriously, which means I should take what you
> write seriously.
>
wow, aren't you brilliant.
'even when the mouth lies, the way it looks, still tells the truth'
matisse
Dav wrote:
> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:39063861...@ameritech.net...
> >
> >
> > it would be much easier to just kill myself now rather than later.
> >
> you appear to assume it will always be your choice.
>
> dav
> fern...@freeuk.com
if it was my choice, i would already be dead.
we are just road kill after all.
J
Jonah Thomas
>> > it would be much easier to just kill myself now rather than later.
>> you appear to assume it will always be your choice.
>if it was my choice, i would already be dead.
Why isn't it your choice right now? You can't always choose to live when
you're dying, but what's to keep you from dying by choice?
matisse
Jonah Thomas wrote:
hmmm i'm not sure if i have the energy or time right now to embark in a
discussing on this.
let me just say this: we cannot control life or death. we assume we can
choose death or life, but we can't. life and death choose us.
of course you are right. it is just that i would rather see life and death
as being fateful necessaries rather than things that i can control.
when it is my time to die, i will die. i have no desire to interfere with
whatever life has set out for me. i would much rather ride out the wave and
see where it takes me, as it always takes you were you need to go.
all i know is that all the rough spots in my life that made me hate myself
and life were essential to my overall growth and inevitable love of life.
sometimes we cannot see through our pain, but eventually we come to see the
lessons that life is trying to teach us, and sometimes this means that we
must go through dark abyss's of hell.
pain and suffering are essential aspects of life. to kill them is to kill
solace and comfort.
j
p.s. can we see a jpeg of your little God?
Miriam Theotokos
matisse wrote:
>
> Jonah Thomas wrote:
>
> > matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > >Dav wrote:
> > >> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> >
> > >> > it would be much easier to just kill myself now rather than later.
> >
> > >> you appear to assume it will always be your choice.
> >
> > >if it was my choice, i would already be dead.
> >
> > Why isn't it your choice right now? You can't always choose to live when
> > you're dying, but what's to keep you from dying by choice?
>
> hmmm i'm not sure if i have the energy or time right now to embark in a
> discussing on this.
>
> let me just say this: we cannot control life or death. we assume we can
> choose death or life, but we can't. life and death choose us.
>
> of course you are right. it is just that i would rather see life and death
> as being fateful necessaries rather than things that i can control.
So *that's* why you seem to need to pretend to be
miserably unhappy all the time!
It feels *much* better to believe you are the Cause,
the Effect, and "the essence of uncreated ecstacy."
Jonah Thomas
>Jonah Thomas wrote:
>> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> >Dav wrote:
>> >> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>> >> > it would be much easier to just kill myself now rather than later.
>> >> you appear to assume it will always be your choice.
>> >if it was my choice, i would already be dead.
>> Why isn't it your choice right now? You can't always choose to live when
>> you're dying, but what's to keep you from dying by choice?
>let me just say this: we cannot control life or death. we assume we can
>choose death or life, but we can't. life and death choose us.
You could say that about anything. Like, if you go into an ice cream store
and choose a chocolate ice cream cone, there's no guarantee you'll get what
you chose. An incompetent retail person might give you strawberry. If you
complain she might then burst into tears and become inconsolable. About the
time another employee comes to handle you, the health inspector who was
inspecting in the back room may come out and condemn the place, leaving you
chocolate-ice-cream-coneless. You might then choose to go to the grocery
store to buy your very own half-gallon of chocolate ice cream, and find that
your car refuses to start. And if you then choose to walk to the grocery
store you might get abducted by somebody who -- trying to initiate a
stockholm-syndrome sort of thing, feeds you strawberry ice cream.
I say, even though you can't ever be sure what you'll get, you might as well
choose anyway. What do you have to lose?
>of course you are right. it is just that i would rather see life and death
>as being fateful necessaries rather than things that i can control.
Ah. You choose to be a fatalist.
>when it is my time to die, i will die. i have no desire to interfere with
>whatever life has set out for me. i would much rather ride out the wave and
>see where it takes me, as it always takes you were you need to go.
This may be a misapplication of the anthropic principle.
>all i know is that all the rough spots in my life that made me hate myself
>and life were essential to my overall growth and inevitable love of life.
>sometimes we cannot see through our pain, but eventually we come to see the
>lessons that life is trying to teach us, and sometimes this means that we
>must go through dark abyss's of hell.
This is definitely a misapplication of the anthropic principle.
>pain and suffering are essential aspects of life. to kill them is to kill
>solace and comfort.
Yes. And you'll get them sometimes when you don't choose them. Still, you
can choose them when you feel like you need them. And if you get enough of
them without choosing, then what's the harm?
matisse
Miriam Theotokos wrote:
> matisse wrote:
> >
> > Jonah Thomas wrote:
> >
> > > matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > > >Dav wrote:
> > > >> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > >> > it would be much easier to just kill myself now rather than later.
> > >
> > > >> you appear to assume it will always be your choice.
> > >
> > > >if it was my choice, i would already be dead.
> > >
> > > Why isn't it your choice right now? You can't always choose to live when
> > > you're dying, but what's to keep you from dying by choice?
> >
> > hmmm i'm not sure if i have the energy or time right now to embark in a
> > discussing on this.
> >
> > let me just say this: we cannot control life or death. we assume we can
> > choose death or life, but we can't. life and death choose us.
> >
> > of course you are right. it is just that i would rather see life and death
> > as being fateful necessaries rather than things that i can control.
>
> So *that's* why you seem to need to pretend to be
> miserably unhappy all the time!
>
> It feels *much* better to believe you are the Cause,
> the Effect, and "the essence of uncreated ecstacy."
oh jen, gotta love you. you are such a laugh!
j
matisse
Jonah Thomas wrote:
> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >Jonah Thomas wrote:
> >> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >> >Dav wrote:
> >> >> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >> > it would be much easier to just kill myself now rather than later.
>
> >> >> you appear to assume it will always be your choice.
>
> >> >if it was my choice, i would already be dead.
>
> >> Why isn't it your choice right now? You can't always choose to live when
> >> you're dying, but what's to keep you from dying by choice?
>
> >let me just say this: we cannot control life or death. we assume we can
> >choose death or life, but we can't. life and death choose us.
>
> You could say that about anything. Like, if you go into an ice cream store
> and choose a chocolate ice cream cone, there's no guarantee you'll get what
> you chose. An incompetent retail person might give you strawberry. If you
> complain she might then burst into tears and become inconsolable. About the
> time another employee comes to handle you, the health inspector who was
> inspecting in the back room may come out and condemn the place, leaving you
> chocolate-ice-cream-coneless. You might then choose to go to the grocery
> store to buy your very own half-gallon of chocolate ice cream, and find that
> your car refuses to start. And if you then choose to walk to the grocery
> store you might get abducted by somebody who -- trying to initiate a
> stockholm-syndrome sort of thing, feeds you strawberry ice cream.
>
> I say, even though you can't ever be sure what you'll get, you might as well
> choose anyway. What do you have to lose?
>
one chooses at every minute, dear. fate and choice are both part of the dice
throw. i just don't think that choosing death is a real option, FOR ME.
>
> >of course you are right. it is just that i would rather see life and death
> >as being fateful necessaries rather than things that i can control.
>
> Ah. You choose to be a fatalist.
>
necessity and chance, love, not one or the other.
>
> >when it is my time to die, i will die. i have no desire to interfere with
> >whatever life has set out for me. i would much rather ride out the wave and
> >see where it takes me, as it always takes you were you need to go.
>
> This may be a misapplication of the anthropic principle.
>
could be
>
> >all i know is that all the rough spots in my life that made me hate myself
> >and life were essential to my overall growth and inevitable love of life.
> >sometimes we cannot see through our pain, but eventually we come to see the
> >lessons that life is trying to teach us, and sometimes this means that we
> >must go through dark abyss's of hell.
>
> This is definitely a misapplication of the anthropic principle.
>
all right, i'll take your word on it.
>
> >pain and suffering are essential aspects of life. to kill them is to kill
> >solace and comfort.
>
> Yes. And you'll get them sometimes when you don't choose them. Still, you
> can choose them when you feel like you need them. And if you get enough of
> them without choosing, then what's the harm?
there is no harm.
J
pookiehead2
>
> one chooses at every minute, dear. fate and choice are both part of
the dice
> throw. i just don't think that choosing death is a real option, FOR
ME.
>
A comedian by the name of Jackie Gleason once said that he went to his
doctor, and the doctor told him that Gleason's habits would kill
Gleason. One quart of vodka per day, five packs of cigarettes per day,
too much rich food, and gambling would lead to his early demise, the
doctor suggested. Gleason told the doctor that a long time ago he had
decided to commit suicide. It was just that he had decided to do it the
slow way. Gleason died, eventually.
Is anyone here old enough to remember the "Jackie Gleason Show" from
when you were a young child. My father loved his show. My father
watched Jackie Gleason, (from the "Honeymooners" with Art Carney and
others,) religiously. The only way my father would have missed one of
Gleason's shows was if he or Gleason died. An amazing thing about
Jackie Gleason, was that the years that he did the "Jackie Gleason
Show," he must have weighed nearly 400lbs., but he would glide onto the
stage, as though he weighed less than a feather. I don't know whether
he taught himself to walk that way or picked it up from someone else,
but it was an amazing sight.
It could have come from "The Incredible Lightness of Being," but I doubt
it.
Bonnie
>Is anyone here old enough to remember the "Jackie Gleason Show" from
>when you were a young child. My father loved his show. My father
>watched Jackie Gleason, (from the "Honeymooners" with Art Carney and
>others,) religiously. The only way my father would have missed one of
>Gleason's shows was if he or Gleason died. An amazing thing about
>Jackie Gleason, was that the years that he did the "Jackie Gleason
>Show," he must have weighed nearly 400lbs., but he would glide onto the
>stage, as though he weighed less than a feather. I don't know whether
>he taught himself to walk that way or picked it up from someone else,
>but it was an amazing sight.
>
I remember watching his old variety show. He filmed in Miami Beach. He started
each show with, "and away we go." He was quite a character. According to his
co-stars, he never showed up for rehearsals. He just went in on the day of the
show with his lines and blocking memorized. He obviously had better things to
do with his time.
I don't think he ever made it to 400 pounds, BTW. Maybe he topped out at 300.
But you're right about his being graceful.
Bonnie
pookiehead2
Bonnie <rua...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000430215054...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
>
> I don't think he ever made it to 400 pounds, BTW. Maybe he topped out
at 300.
> But you're right about his being graceful.
You are correct, of course. I once worked for a man who weighed just
over 380lbs.; his wife weighed about 330lbs. His wife was closer to
Jackie Gleason's actual size. The hefty couple had three daughters.
The daughters hated people who talked disparagingly about "fat" people.
They found the prejudice to be as ignorant and despicable as racist
remarks. They were very protective of their parents.
crookedline
matisse wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> > matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >
> > >you should never take what i write seriously.
> >
> > then why write it?
> >
>
> because i was speaking in metaphor, my dear.
So how are we supposed to tell you from the people who really intend to do
something? Don't cry wolf. And besides, it's not that interesting or
creative a metaphor.
Elaine
Melia
Crying wolf is more dramatic, of course, but it's also more pathetic to
have to be dramatic in that way to get attention.
I know that several people were personally offended because of personal
experiences that either they or loved ones have had, so it goes beyond
being uninteresting as a "metaphor" and more toward being loathesomely
self-indulgent and insensitive, but I'll accept "not that interesting."
matisse
Melia wrote:
you really need to get a life.
you are far worse than jet. not only would you people have me be responsible
for the actions of rapists, but now you want me to take other peoples emotional
states under my wing?
i had no idea that i am responsible for the emotion well being of other people.
fuck, that must explain why my life is so empty. fuck, that must explain why no
one likes me. boo-hoo. i'm going to go kill myself now. might as well be as
self-indulgent and as insensitive as i can possible be.
you offend me by existing, dear.
now please kindly fuck off.
J
p.s. the beauty of metaphor is that while it isn't real, it is more real than
actual reality. one day i hope that some of you will understand that when i say
things in metaphor, what i am doing is trying to take the edge off of it. i am
seriously sorry if i did offend anyones aesthetic, and i will try to keep my
thoughts of suicide to myself, like i usually do.
Jonah Thomas
>Melia wrote:
>> I know that several people were personally offended because of personal
>> experiences that either they or loved ones have had, so it goes beyond
>> being uninteresting as a "metaphor" and more toward being loathesomely
>> self-indulgent and insensitive, but I'll accept "not that interesting."
>you are far worse than jet.
Surely you can come up with a worse insult than that. It would take a
pretty peculiar sort of judgement to put her close to my level. Not meaning
any insult to her, very few people are as good as I am.
>not only would you people have me be responsible
>for the actions of rapists, but now you want me to take other peoples emotional
>states under my wing?
It's nice when we can avoid unnecessarily ruffling their feathers. If you
go around reminding people about their dead relatives, or Hitler, or
Nietzsche, or Wagner, or Kurt Kobain, or any of the other awful people that
have happened to them, they're likely to think you're an angster. And then
they'll only hang around you if they like that kind of thing. And if they
like that kind of thing what kind of company will they make?
The above paragraph, while satirical, was also meant completely seriously.
>i had no idea that i am responsible for the emotion well being of other people.
You can accept responsibility for anything you're willing to accept
responsibility for. If you don't make that choice then you are not
responsible. What other people blame you for has nothing to do with your
responsibility. I hope that's clear.
>fuck, that must explain why my life is so empty. fuck, that must explain why no
>one likes me. boo-hoo. i'm going to go kill myself now. might as well be as
>self-indulgent and as insensitive as i can possible be.
Does it benefit you to let Media have this much influence on you?
>p.s. the beauty of metaphor is that while it isn't real, it is more real than
>actual reality. one day i hope that some of you will understand that when i
>say things in metaphor, what i am doing is trying to take the edge off of it.
Like sarcasm, this doesn't work well as communication unless it's with
people who know you very well. Consider how many people on alt.angst know
you that well, after all these years. That says something about how
effective this approach to communication is, doesn't it?
And yet, when you make up your own privately-coded language it can help to
take the edge off, for you. And then when you post your private journal
written in your privately-coded language to a public newsgroup, you should
expect some peculiar responses.
>i am seriously sorry if i did offend anyones aesthetic, and i will try to
>keep my thoughts of suicide to myself, like i usually do.
Since you brought it up, I'll talk about that too. When I play a game I
like to play as hard as I can. If I'm playing chess and I'm down to the
king and one pawn, I'll try to get that queen and win. If I'm down to the
king I'll try for a stalemate. Why resign, unless you know it gives you a
chance to play a better game? I like to live that way too. Why give up
when there might still be something to win? I don't understand people who
commit suicide when they're healthy. Why not scrape up enough money for a
ticket to brazil? Go to brazil, sell your passport, and start a new life.
If that one turns out as bad as this one you can always kill yourself then,
why not try a new life first?
I'd die for my family if I didn't see a better way to take care of them, but
why kill yourself just because you're losing the games you've chosen to
play?
I could understand suicide from depression, but depressed people mostly
don't do it, they just stay depressed. (Unless they own guns, in which case
they might shoot themselves in a moment of whimsy like anybody else would.)
I think it's a cultural thing. People put some sort of moral stigma on it,
and so that makes it attractive since so many other things with moral
stigmas turn out to be fun. And relatives who try to put you in a box and
never let you out, might find that you can get out after all. (Maybe your
body winds up in a box forever, but that wasn't what they intended.) Still,
you could make the point almost as well by disappearing in brazil. I dunno.
matisse
Jonah Thomas wrote:
> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >Melia wrote:
>
> >> I know that several people were personally offended because of personal
> >> experiences that either they or loved ones have had, so it goes beyond
> >> being uninteresting as a "metaphor" and more toward being loathesomely
> >> self-indulgent and insensitive, but I'll accept "not that interesting."
>
> >you are far worse than jet.
>
> Surely you can come up with a worse insult than that. It would take a
> pretty peculiar sort of judgement to put her close to my level. Not meaning
> any insult to her, very few people are as good as I am.
>
jet, hon, that wasn't an insult. you should know that.
>
> >not only would you people have me be responsible
> >for the actions of rapists, but now you want me to take other peoples emotional
> >states under my wing?
>
> It's nice when we can avoid unnecessarily ruffling their feathers. If you
> go around reminding people about their dead relatives, or Hitler, or
> Nietzsche, or Wagner, or Kurt Kobain, or any of the other awful people that
> have happened to them, they're likely to think you're an angster. And then
> they'll only hang around you if they like that kind of thing. And if they
> like that kind of thing what kind of company will they make?
>
> The above paragraph, while satirical, was also meant completely seriously.
>
i understand that. it is a rather nice paragraph, in a way that only makes sense in
your universe.
>
> >i had no idea that i am responsible for the emotion well being of other people.
>
> You can accept responsibility for anything you're willing to accept
> responsibility for. If you don't make that choice then you are not
> responsible. What other people blame you for has nothing to do with your
> responsibility. I hope that's clear.
>
yes, it is very clear, and that was part of what i was saying. thank you for saying
it without the sarcasm.
>
> >fuck, that must explain why my life is so empty. fuck, that must explain why no
> >one likes me. boo-hoo. i'm going to go kill myself now. might as well be as
> >self-indulgent and as insensitive as i can possible be.
>
> Does it benefit you to let Media have this much influence on you?
>
Media? do you mean, irrational rationality? hehhee what an image. it all makes
sense now!
influence? get real, jet. its not like i think about any of this crap after i stop
reading it. it has very little effect on me, if any.
it is all just words, after all. and words by strangers, at that.
i can't remember the last time anyone said anything that actually effected me here.
and it isn't a matter of bouncing or not caring. it is a matter of it just being
words thrown by "angsters".
>
> >p.s. the beauty of metaphor is that while it isn't real, it is more real than
> >actual reality. one day i hope that some of you will understand that when i
> >say things in metaphor, what i am doing is trying to take the edge off of it.
>
> Like sarcasm, this doesn't work well as communication unless it's with
> people who know you very well. Consider how many people on alt.angst know
> you that well, after all these years. That says something about how
> effective this approach to communication is, doesn't it?
>
it works perfectly for my intents, dear.
>
> And yet, when you make up your own privately-coded language it can help to
> take the edge off, for you. And then when you post your private journal
> written in your privately-coded language to a public newsgroup, you should
> expect some peculiar responses.
>
of course, and i always have a good laugh over them.
>
> >i am seriously sorry if i did offend anyones aesthetic, and i will try to
> >keep my thoughts of suicide to myself, like i usually do.
>
> Since you brought it up, I'll talk about that too. When I play a game I
> like to play as hard as I can. If I'm playing chess and I'm down to the
> king and one pawn, I'll try to get that queen and win. If I'm down to the
> king I'll try for a stalemate. Why resign, unless you know it gives you a
> chance to play a better game? I like to live that way too. Why give up
> when there might still be something to win? I don't understand people who
> commit suicide when they're healthy. Why not scrape up enough money for a
> ticket to brazil? Go to brazil, sell your passport, and start a new life.
> If that one turns out as bad as this one you can always kill yourself then,
> why not try a new life first?
>
you are preaching to the wrong person, jet. like i said last week, i would never
kill myself.
>
> I'd die for my family if I didn't see a better way to take care of them, but
> why kill yourself just because you're losing the games you've chosen to
> play?
>
exactly. i'm with you completely.
>
> I could understand suicide from depression, but depressed people mostly
> don't do it, they just stay depressed. (Unless they own guns, in which case
> they might shoot themselves in a moment of whimsy like anybody else would.)
> I think it's a cultural thing.
here's some worthless knowledge that you so like. actually, suicidal attempts are
usually attempted after the major abyss of a depressive episode. they only occur
when the persons isn't completely depressed, because if one is really depressed,
they don't even have the energy to kill themselves. so the irony of course is that
right when things are on an upswing, they go and kill themselves, when what they
should do is just wait for the phase to finish its cycle.
> People put some sort of moral stigma on it,
> and so that makes it attractive since so many other things with moral
> stigmas turn out to be fun. And relatives who try to put you in a box and
> never let you out, might find that you can get out after all.
the person i love wants to lock me up and keep me in a cage in his room. i think he
has been reading too much bad literature.
> (Maybe your
> body winds up in a box forever, but that wasn't what they intended.) Still,
> you could make the point almost as well by disappearing in brazil. I dunno.
if suicide is really what i was after, i would move to Jamaica.
J
Jonah Thomas
>> >you are far worse than jet.
>> Surely you can come up with a worse insult than that. It would take a
>> pretty peculiar sort of judgement to put her close to my level. Not meaning
>> any insult to her, very few people are as good as I am.
>jet, hon, that wasn't an insult. you should know that.
You weren't trying to insult her?
>> >i had no idea that i am responsible for the emotion well being of other
>> > people.
>> You can accept responsibility for anything you're willing to accept
>> responsibility for. If you don't make that choice then you are not
>> responsible. What other people blame you for has nothing to do with your
>> responsibility. I hope that's clear.
>yes, it is very clear, and that was part of what i was saying. thank you for
>saying it without the sarcasm.
>> >fuck, that must explain why my life is so empty. fuck, that must explain why
>> >no one likes me. boo-hoo. i'm going to go kill myself now. might as well be
>> >as self-indulgent and as insensitive as i can possible be.
>> Does it benefit you to let Media have this much influence on you?
>Media? do you mean, irrational rationality? hehhee what an image. it all
>makes sense now!
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant Melia.
>influence? get real, jet. its not like i think about any of this crap after i
>stop reading it. it has very little effect on me, if any.
>it is all just words, after all. and words by strangers, at that.
In another post recently you proposed that there is no identity beyond such
words.
>i can't remember the last time anyone said anything that actually effected me
>here. and it isn't a matter of bouncing or not caring. it is a matter of it just
>being words thrown by "angsters".
Why do you bother, if it won't affect you?
>> I could understand suicide from depression, but depressed people mostly
>> don't do it, they just stay depressed. (Unless they own guns, in which case
>> they might shoot themselves in a moment of whimsy like anybody else would.)
>> I think it's a cultural thing.
>here's some worthless knowledge that you so like. actually, suicidal attempts
>are usually attempted after the major abyss of a depressive episode. they only
>occur when the persons isn't completely depressed, because if one is really
>depressed, they don't even have the energy to kill themselves. so the irony of
>course is that right when things are on an upswing, they go and kill
>themselves, when what they should do is just wait for the phase to finish
>its cycle.
It's a judgment thing. Feel good enough to do something, overwhelming
problems that look completely insoluble, a potentially easy solution. Hard
to think that you're just on a rollercoaster and if you wait you'll get to
the top and head down again. But it's got to be a cultural thing.
>> People put some sort of moral stigma on it,
>> and so that makes it attractive since so many other things with moral
>> stigmas turn out to be fun. And relatives who try to put you in a box and
>> never let you out, might find that you can get out after all.
>the person i love wants to lock me up and keep me in a cage in his room. i
>think he has been reading too much bad literature.
You could let him try it for awhile. Tell him you're bored every time you
get bored. See how long he wants to carry out your slop pail. It doesn't
take very long for reality to set in. If he brought you the right books,
he'd probably get tired of it long before you did.
crookedline
Melia wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2000, crookedline wrote:
>
> > matisse wrote:
> > > Bob wrote:
> > > > matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >you should never take what i write seriously.
> > > > then why write it?
> > > because i was speaking in metaphor, my dear.
> >
> > So how are we supposed to tell you from the people who really intend to do
> > something? Don't cry wolf. And besides, it's not that interesting or
> > creative a metaphor.
>
> Crying wolf is more dramatic, of course, but it's also more pathetic to
> have to be dramatic in that way to get attention.
>
> I know that several people were personally offended because of personal
> experiences that either they or loved ones have had, so it goes beyond
> being uninteresting as a "metaphor" and more toward being loathesomely
> self-indulgent and insensitive, but I'll accept "not that interesting."
Unfortunately, being accused of being boring is often more of an insult than
being insensitive.
E.
Bonnie
>p.s. the beauty of metaphor is that while it isn't real, it is more real than
>actual reality.
Where do you get this stuff, J?
Bonnie
matisse
Bonnie wrote:
<laughter>
the above is the result of looking at metaphors as being the elastic, ambiguous
things that they are, whereby they are indefinite, nonexhaustive yet descriptive.
Metaphors, we might say, always posit themselves as being "hypothesis," where
they are and are not true. The known and unknown coexist, and they thereby
preserve the unknowable.
J
matisse
Jonah Thomas wrote:
> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >Jonah Thomas wrote:
> >> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >> >you are far worse than jet.
>
> >> Surely you can come up with a worse insult than that. It would take a
> >> pretty peculiar sort of judgement to put her close to my level. Not meaning
> >> any insult to her, very few people are as good as I am.
>
> >jet, hon, that wasn't an insult. you should know that.
>
> You weren't trying to insult her?
no.
>
>
> >> >i had no idea that i am responsible for the emotion well being of other
> >> > people.
>
> >> You can accept responsibility for anything you're willing to accept
> >> responsibility for. If you don't make that choice then you are not
> >> responsible. What other people blame you for has nothing to do with your
> >> responsibility. I hope that's clear.
>
> >yes, it is very clear, and that was part of what i was saying. thank you for
> >saying it without the sarcasm.
>
> >> >fuck, that must explain why my life is so empty. fuck, that must explain why
> >> >no one likes me. boo-hoo. i'm going to go kill myself now. might as well be
> >> >as self-indulgent and as insensitive as i can possible be.
>
> >> Does it benefit you to let Media have this much influence on you?
>
> >Media? do you mean, irrational rationality? hehhee what an image. it all
> >makes sense now!
>
> Sorry, that was a typo. I meant Melia.
>
it was a great typo because now i can't help but think of Melia as Medea.
>
> >influence? get real, jet. its not like i think about any of this crap after i
> >stop reading it. it has very little effect on me, if any.
>
> >it is all just words, after all. and words by strangers, at that.
>
> In another post recently you proposed that there is no identity beyond such
> words.
>
oh yes, but i run lots of arguments i don't really believe in, as do you.
>
> >i can't remember the last time anyone said anything that actually effected me
> >here. and it isn't a matter of bouncing or not caring. it is a matter of it just
> >being words thrown by "angsters".
>
> Why do you bother, if it won't affect you?
>
what, dealing with angsters? bad habit. amusment.
>
> >> I could understand suicide from depression, but depressed people mostly
> >> don't do it, they just stay depressed. (Unless they own guns, in which case
> >> they might shoot themselves in a moment of whimsy like anybody else would.)
> >> I think it's a cultural thing.
>
> >here's some worthless knowledge that you so like. actually, suicidal attempts
> >are usually attempted after the major abyss of a depressive episode. they only
> >occur when the persons isn't completely depressed, because if one is really
> >depressed, they don't even have the energy to kill themselves. so the irony of
> >course is that right when things are on an upswing, they go and kill
> >themselves, when what they should do is just wait for the phase to finish
> >its cycle.
>
> It's a judgment thing. Feel good enough to do something, overwhelming
> problems that look completely insoluble, a potentially easy solution. Hard
> to think that you're just on a rollercoaster and if you wait you'll get to
> the top and head down again. But it's got to be a cultural thing.
>
can we discuss this cultural aspect. i'm curious as to what you are thinking. this
moral stigma thing?
>
> >the person i love wants to lock me up and keep me in a cage in his room. i
> >think he has been reading too much bad literature.
>
> You could let him try it for awhile. Tell him you're bored every time you
> get bored. See how long he wants to carry out your slop pail. It doesn't
> take very long for reality to set in. If he brought you the right books,
> he'd probably get tired of it long before you did.
you know me so well.
J
Jonah Thomas
>can we discuss this cultural aspect [of suicide]. i'm curious as to what you are thinking.
>this moral sigma thing?
OK. Different cultures have vastly different suicide rates. And suicide
methods vary by culture too. Durkheim didn't say it very clearly, he was
groping at the concepts. He played with statistics and found that after he
removed the statistical fluctuations, different nations had different
constant suicide rates. (The rates were constant because he'd removed the
statistical fluctuations, natch.) He then talked like there was some
guiding hive mind that required a certain number of people to commit suicide
each year, and different nations had different hive minds forcing their
citizens to do whatever they did. Regardless how ridiculous the idea seems
today, there could be something to it.
Some cultures encourage their members to believe that suicide brings
absolution. "Blood washes away guilt." People might look down on you now
and there's nothing you can do about it while you're alive, but if you kill
yourself they'll respect you after all. Various military castes have had
that. I've read about a british custom, that when a military officer was
found to have done something dishonorable, he might find his dress uniform
laid out neatly on his bed with his sidearm prominently on top -- they
*expected* him to shoot himself, it was in the rules.
Some cultures forbid their members to commit suicide, and pay a lot of
attention to those who do. It becomes a final defiance of the rules. After
a suicide that gets a lot of media attention there is usually a statistical
blip of others -- people who suddenly realise that there was a precedent, or
suddenly get up the nerve, or think it over and notice they have nothing
better to do, etc.
In cultures where suicide is expected, it makes sense the official rates
might be inflated by accidents and murders. I remember from Fermi's wife's
autobiography, they knew a bright young physicist who was a bit strange.
One day he got on the ferry to some place -- Sicily, I think -- and when the
ferry got there he was gone. Everybody assumed he committed suicide. But
strange young men might sometimes do foolish things that result in their
falling off boats. (I myself once fell off a library.) And if he
associated with the wrong sort of people he might have offended them with
the result that they stole his wallet and threw him overboard.
When there's a suicide note it's a bit less ambiguous. Can you imagine what
it would be like to be terrorised into writing a suicide note? Writing
slowly, hoping somebody would come rescue you in time. I like to think I
wouldn't write a suicide note no matter what. I mean, if somebody is
treating you bad to make you write a suicide note, actually writing the note
seems like it's just *asking* for it. Well, this is more morbid than I
want. The accident statistics are surely biased with suicides, but it isn't
obvious in which direction. Some people might disguise their suicides as
accidents, while some legitimate accidents will look like suicide. And
then, it isn't fully clear what an accident is, anyway. I know a woman
who's led hundreds of caving trips, many with large groups of novices, and
has never had an accident on the trip. Before each one she requires
everybody to promise they won't have an accident. They complain. "I can't
promise that! Accidents don't happen on purpose!" But she insists, and
they promise, and then they don't have accidents.
I'll stop now.
desnos
matisse wrote:
> J
> p.s. the beauty of metaphor is that while it isn't real, it is more real than
> actual reality. one day i hope that some of you will understand that when i say
> things in metaphor, what i am doing is trying to take the edge off of it.
I've been thinking about visuality and metaphor lately. Namely, I've been thinking
that what metaphors create, among other things, is an image that is more concrete
than the abstract concept. This spring I read Woolf's "Room of One's Own" and the
thing that struck me most viscerally was her use of metaphor -- she compared
knowledge to oil, slipping through fingers -- to golden nuggets and the like. It
made the concept seem material -- sensory even.
I don't know if metaphors take the edge off at all. In fact, I think they
strengthen a sensation.
The second part of this thought of mine is that certain visual arguments are more
effective than non-visual ones -- hence the metaphor/visuality relationship.
des
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On 6 May 2000, Bonnie asked Jonah:
[...]
> Do different cultures invite specific rituals?
> Or, is it just a throw of the dice?
Why would anybody expect Jonah to answer this question?
I'd say 'yes, different cultures invite specific rituals,
of which throwing the dice (or playing Russian Roulette)
happens to be one our (American/"Western") culture likes
(perhaps because the interjected element of chance jibes
with the Occident's loathing for personal responsibility).'
If, that is, you'd have asked me, or asked for an answer
from someone who knows more about life than grad school
(or who'd at least read a bit about real past or current
human terrestrial cultures), that's what I'd've answered.
But as you didn't, I'll have to consider only the source
and supply you with an answer you'll understand, to wit:
"HUH? Whah tyoo tawkin' 'bout, Willis?"
The
- --
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | "Thinking is painful." -Layo Lehmann, ironically
All Rights Reserved | David, P.O. Box 236, Berkeley, CA 94704 U.S.A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBORO+8Bz40he1RakNEQIrBwCg3k2RAnch5Yj/PCtLaz7OhClkWKgAoMoq
pF5Sa9qR3cV0qB06FqeCyfMd
=4lYK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bonnie
>Bonnie wrote:
>
>> J wrote:
>>
>> >p.s. the beauty of metaphor is that while it isn't real, it is more real
>than
>> >actual reality.
>>
>> Where do you get this stuff, J?
>>
>> Bonnie
>
><laughter>
>
>
>the above is the result of looking at metaphors as being the elastic,
>ambiguous
>things that they are, whereby they are indefinite, nonexhaustive yet
>descriptive.
>Metaphors, we might say, always posit themselves as being "hypothesis,"
>where
>they are and are not true. The known and unknown coexist, and they thereby
>preserve the unknowable.
>
>J
>
The above -what- is the result of... etc., etc. ? My above, or your above?
When we solve this mystery, we can move on to the next fifty questions I have
about your post.
Bonnie
Bonnie
>In cultures where suicide is expected, it makes sense the official rates
>might be inflated by accidents and murders.
Yes, this is common sense. But why? Your suggestion of a "hive mentality" is
interesting. Do different cultures invite specific rituals? Or, is it just a
throw of the dice?
Bonnie
matisse
Bonnie wrote:
> J wrote:
>
> >Bonnie wrote:
> >
> >> J wrote:
> >>
> >> >p.s. the beauty of metaphor is that while it isn't real, it is more real
> >than
> >> >actual reality.
> >>
> >> Where do you get this stuff, J?
> >>
> >> Bonnie
> >
> ><laughter>
> >
> >
> >the above is the result of looking at metaphors as being the elastic,
> >ambiguous
> >things that they are, whereby they are indefinite, nonexhaustive yet
> >descriptive.
> >Metaphors, we might say, always posit themselves as being "hypothesis,"
> >where
> >they are and are not true. The known and unknown coexist, and they thereby
> >preserve the unknowable.
> >
> >J
> >
>
> The above -what- is the result of... etc., etc. ? My above, or your above?
>
my comment on metaphor being more real, while not being.
>
> When we solve this mystery, we can move on to the next fifty questions I have
> about your post.
>
i think i am going to turn into the boy with a thorn in his side.
so bonnie, back to the teaching stuff! question. a good mate of mine got a job
at a state university last year, and his possibility for tenure is dependent on
being a certified teacher. he luckily is. there are tons of small education
colleges that want foundations people (ME) to also teach method courses, etc.
whereby they want you to have actual public school experience. Since i do not
want to end up at a research one, i have been thinking i should get certified
while i write my dissertation to make myself more marketable. Of course if i
ever had to teach method classes i would have to kill myself, as i do not think
you can "teach" someone how to teach. Model for them, yes, but "teach" in a
traditional sense, i doubt it.
I guess my problem is that getting certified would open up my opportunities for
jobs, at the same time, however, they most likely won't be jobs i want.
However, do you think i would be better at working with education majors if i
have had actual in school experience. Thus far it hasn't hindered me, as i know
lots of people that are teachers. The students don't seem to care. They realize
that teaching them is what i want to do, and one student on an evaluation said it
was very noticeable and wonderful that i was there to teach THEM.
In any case, all i know is that it is time to get my vitea looking plush so that
after defending my proposal, i can get myself a real job. I want my own house,
damnit!
J
matisse
desnos wrote:
> matisse wrote:
>
> > J
> > p.s. the beauty of metaphor is that while it isn't real, it is more real than
> > actual reality. one day i hope that some of you will understand that when i say
> > things in metaphor, what i am doing is trying to take the edge off of it.
>
> I've been thinking about visuality and metaphor lately. Namely, I've been thinking
> that what metaphors create, among other things, is an image that is more concrete
> than the abstract concept. This spring I read Woolf's "Room of One's Own" and the
> thing that struck me most viscerally was her use of metaphor -- she compared
> knowledge to oil, slipping through fingers -- to golden nuggets and the like. It
> made the concept seem material -- sensory even.
>
Have you read " a house on mango street"? It is wonderful in that the whole book is
about linking via metaphor (very lyotard like). On the one hand, you have short
chapters, each with their own metaphor, while at the same time no metanarrative. Thus,
the book is a book of different metaphors that link only by way of being about the same
overall topic, the name of the book. You thus are left with all these images rather
than conceptual frames by which to make sense of the book. It is wonderful in that it
is very much about phrasing, but phrasing that has gaps.
I haven't read that Wolf book in years, but i will never forget her metaphors. Even
better is Gertrude Stein.
>
> I don't know if metaphors take the edge off at all. In fact, I think they
> strengthen a sensation.
>
You are right, i was thinking more about irony.
>
> The second part of this thought of mine is that certain visual arguments are more
> effective than non-visual ones -- hence the metaphor/visuality relationship.
Yes. i'll go along with that.
matisse
Jonah Thomas wrote:
> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >can we discuss this cultural aspect [of suicide]. i'm curious as to what you are thinking.
> >this moral sigma thing?
>
> OK. Different cultures have vastly different suicide rates. And suicide
> methods vary by culture too. Durkheim didn't say it very clearly, he was
> groping at the concepts. He played with statistics and found that after he
> removed the statistical fluctuations, different nations had different
> constant suicide rates. (The rates were constant because he'd removed the
> statistical fluctuations, natch.) He then talked like there was some
> guiding hive mind that required a certain number of people to commit suicide
> each year, and different nations had different hive minds forcing their
> citizens to do whatever they did. Regardless how ridiculous the idea seems
> today, there could be something to it.
>
he also found that divorced woman are less likely to attempt suicide than married woman or
married men, while single men are more likely than all others. that has always stuck with
me.
>
> Some cultures encourage their members to believe that suicide brings
> absolution. "Blood washes away guilt." People might look down on you now
> and there's nothing you can do about it while you're alive, but if you kill
> yourself they'll respect you after all. Various military castes have had
> that. I've read about a british custom, that when a military officer was
> found to have done something dishonorable, he might find his dress uniform
> laid out neatly on his bed with his sidearm prominently on top -- they
> *expected* him to shoot himself, it was in the rules.
>
reminds me of "a few good men."
>
> Some cultures forbid their members to commit suicide, and pay a lot of
> attention to those who do. It becomes a final defiance of the rules. After
> a suicide that gets a lot of media attention there is usually a statistical
> blip of others -- people who suddenly realise that there was a precedent, or
> suddenly get up the nerve, or think it over and notice they have nothing
> better to do, etc.
>
> In cultures where suicide is expected, it makes sense the official rates
> might be inflated by accidents and murders. I remember from Fermi's wife's
> autobiography, they knew a bright young physicist who was a bit strange.
> One day he got on the ferry to some place -- Sicily, I think -- and when the
> ferry got there he was gone. Everybody assumed he committed suicide. But
> strange young men might sometimes do foolish things that result in their
> falling off boats. (I myself once fell off a library.) And if he
> associated with the wrong sort of people he might have offended them with
> the result that they stole his wallet and threw him overboard.
>
> When there's a suicide note it's a bit less ambiguous. Can you imagine what
> it would be like to be terrorised into writing a suicide note? Writing
> slowly, hoping somebody would come rescue you in time. I like to think I
> wouldn't write a suicide note no matter what. I mean, if somebody is
> treating you bad to make you write a suicide note, actually writing the note
> seems like it's just *asking* for it. Well, this is more morbid than I
> want. The accident statistics are surely biased with suicides, but it isn't
> obvious in which direction. Some people might disguise their suicides as
> accidents, while some legitimate accidents will look like suicide. And
> then, it isn't fully clear what an accident is, anyway. I know a woman
> who's led hundreds of caving trips, many with large groups of novices, and
> has never had an accident on the trip. Before each one she requires
> everybody to promise they won't have an accident. They complain. "I can't
> promise that! Accidents don't happen on purpose!" But she insists, and
> they promise, and then they don't have accidents.
>
> I'll stop now.
i might have to kill myself after saying this but... interesting. Thank you.
J
Jonah Thomas
>Jonah wrote (a whole lot, but his thesis is below):
>>In cultures where suicide is expected, it makes sense the official rates
>>might be inflated by accidents and murders.
That wasn't my thesis, that was a side issue. When suicide is something
people expect to happen, some accidents and murders are likely to be
misdiagnosed as suicide. When suicide is something people mostly don't
think of, some suicides are likely to be misdiagnosed as accidents or
murders.
>Yes, this is common sense. But why? Your suggestion of a "hive mentality" is
>interesting. Do different cultures invite specific rituals? Or, is it just a
>throw of the dice?
I don't understand your question. Could you restate it? Yes, different
cultures seem to encourage different kinds of suicide, and different roles
in a culture encourage different kinds. Some roles predispose people to
shotguns, while others predispose them to sleeping pills. There's an old
tradition in SF of jumping off the Golden Gate bridge. It could possibly
come from the silly idea that if you can't be happy and fulfilled in SF then
you can't be happy or fulfilled anywhere. I dunno. But then, some people
want to make really splashy suicides. I visited Emory University in Atlanta
some years ago, and I noticed they had nice balconies on the top floor of
their library, you'd be able to see the whole campus from there. I went up
and asked to go out on them and they indignantly refused. It was during
finals, and it turned out they had a problem with students killing
themselves during finals by jumping off that balcony. A couple of days
later a theology student committed suicide by jumping through the stained
glass window in the chapel.
Bonnie
>>Yes, this is common sense. But why? Your suggestion of a "hive mentality"
>is
>>interesting. Do different cultures invite specific rituals? Or, is it just a
>>throw of the dice?
>
>I don't understand your question. Could you restate it? Yes, different
>cultures seem to encourage different kinds of suicide, and different roles
>in a culture encourage different kinds. Some roles predispose people to
>shotguns, while others predispose them to sleeping pills. There's an old
>tradition in SF of jumping off the Golden Gate bridge. It could possibly
>come from the silly idea that if you can't be happy and fulfilled in SF then
>you can't be happy or fulfilled anywhere. I dunno.
No, that's not what I meant. What I mean, and what I got out of your previous
post, is that some cultrues might be predisposed to suicide, which is why they
created rituals that don't frown upon the act.
What do you think? Just curious.
Bonnie
Bonnie
>so bonnie, back to the teaching stuff! question. a good mate of mine got a
>job
>at a state university last year, and his possibility for tenure is dependent
>on
>being a certified teacher. he luckily is. there are tons of small education
>colleges that want foundations people (ME) to also teach method courses, etc.
>whereby they want you to have actual public school experience. Since i do not
>want to end up at a research one, i have been thinking i should get
>certified
>while i write my dissertation to make myself more marketable. Of course if i
>ever had to teach method classes i would have to kill myself, as i do not
>think
>you can "teach" someone how to teach. Model for them, yes, but "teach" in a
>traditional sense, i doubt it.
>
I agree. People learn to teach by teaching. The only practical thing I ever
learned in an education class was to look for a seasoned teacher, and latch on
to him or her. I did just that during my first year of teaching, and she taught
me more than any of the professors I had at Brooklyn College ( which at the
time was considered a top school for teacher training). About ten years ago,
NYC started a mentoring program for new teachers. It only took them 100 years
to develop.
>I guess my problem is that getting certified would open up my opportunities
>for
>jobs, at the same time, however, they most likely won't be jobs i want.
>
Yes, we discussed this once. Well, that's a personal decision that only you
can make. I love teaching in the public school system in NYC. For me it's a
constant source of reward, but I'm very weird, and I'm also a cheap date.
>However, do you think i would be better at working with education majors if
>i
>have had actual in school experience.
They won't take you seriously unless you have real experience under your belt.
BTW, when you say education majors, are you talking about people who want to
teach the... <gulp> early grades? I was an English major, and I minored in
secondary education. I did, however, take a children's literature class with a
bunch of ed majors. It's a whole different animal. Not to be snooty, and
stuff, but these were girls (ALL girls) who had a hard time reading anything
above 'Charlotte's Web'
Thus far it hasn't hindered me, as i
>know
>lots of people that are teachers. The students don't seem to care. They
>realize
>that teaching them is what i want to do, and one student on an evaluation
>said it
>was very noticeable and wonderful that i was there to teach THEM.
>
You can dazzle them with enthusiasm for so long before someone asks you about
your experience.
>In any case, all i know is that it is time to get my vitea looking plush so
>that
>after defending my proposal, i can get myself a real job. I want my own
>house,
>damnit!
>
>J
>
You want your own house... on a teacher's salary?
Oh, you dreamer, you!
Bonnie
Bonnie
Dav
Jonah Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
[thread about choosing life/death - example of choice of ice-cream thwarted
cruelly]
>Like, if you go into an ice cream store
> and choose a chocolate ice cream cone, there's no guarantee you'll get
what
> you chose. An incompetent retail person might give you strawberry ...
[snipped]
You know, it strikes a chord with me this story because we do like to delude
ourselves that everything in our lives is in our control. That is, the
people who aren't deluding themselves that they have no control over
anything are deluding themselves that they have total control over
everything.
You can set out with an intention but you might not get what you want. More
often than not you get something completley different and much of how you
feel about life probably depends on how you react to that.
The people who think they have no control are either avoiding taking any
responsibility for their choices or they're lying in a hospital bed covered
in their own urine.
You don't choose to be alive, most people don't choose when they die. Some
people do and it's within the power of most people to choose to end their
lives. Most people don't.
As for the man with the divine plan (also snipped - oops), what if the
Divine One wants something different for you than you want for yourself?
This tends to be the moment that people start to part company with their
beliefs. It's very easy to believe that there is a Divine Plan (or fate or
whatever) if you simply take your own plan and re-name it 'fate'.
By the way, death sounds like the door inside a train slamming as the train
pulls out of the station.
Jonah Thomas
>No, that's not what I meant. What I mean, and what I got out of your previous
>post, is that some cultrues might be predisposed to suicide, which is why they
>created rituals that don't frown upon the act.
>What do you think? Just curious.
Some cultures use suicide. When they drive people into dilemmas with no
good way out, they then encourage them to kill themselves. Social harmony
is preserved.
Some cultures make a big deal of disapproving suicide. When they drive
people into dilemmas the people are supposed to suffer. Society doesn't get
more harmonious.
One could ask what it's all for. I'm not convinced that it has any
purposes. Those societies survive that survive best, out of the rather
small number that get to compete. I can make up JustSo stories about the
advantages of particular patterns, but I might be wrong. Like, people who
kill themselves are no longer around to cause trouble. They might be the
ones with the most incentive to create social change. Or when families are
stuck with double binds they can't resolve, they'll be too busy to think
about doing something new. Etc. But it's always possible to make up some
kind of story about why things are the way they are. Societies haven't had
enough competition for me to believe the fine points have been strongly
selected. So maybe a lot of what goes on in societies is just accident.
Things that have no purpose, that don't even aid the societies' survival,
that just happen.
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Dav wrote:
[...]
> or they're lying in a hospital bed covered in their own urine.
When we were your age we couldn't afford those -- we resorted to alleys.
The
- --
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | "Thinking is painful." -Layo Lehmann, ironically
All Rights Reserved | David, P.O. Box 236, Berkeley, CA 94704 U.S.A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBORZoWRz40he1RakNEQIiMQCfRslsl8z3wDxdVPDcYS1nzeK/4/0AnjNw
OL2OAVm3Mj/ZlcrOoI7hpuCe
=KKNH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Jonah Thomas wrote:
[...]
> Like, people who kill themselves are no longer around to cause
> trouble. They might be the ones with the most incentive to create
> social change.
Bingo, I think. Not that ALL suicidals are like that -- some are
just to dumb to think of something else to do -- but a lot are.
By the way: have I outlived Caligula yet?
The
- --
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | "Thinking is painful." -Layo Lehmann, ironically
All Rights Reserved | David, P.O. Box 236, Berkeley, CA 94704 U.S.A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBORZpKxz40he1RakNEQIh7ACdHoh94DMV7P97eACFiZC5H9tpefIAoOqM
S1HyZjacmaOLT8gF7ultkn5Q
=iUCY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Melia
On Sat, 6 May 2000, matisse wrote:
> Have you read " a house on mango street"? It is wonderful in that the whole book is
> about linking via metaphor (very lyotard like).
huh? Who told you that? That's probably the weakest assessment of that
book that I have ever heard.
On the one hand, you have short
> chapters, each with their own metaphor, while at the same time no metanarrative. Thus,
> the book is a book of different metaphors that link only by way of being about the same
> overall topic, the name of the book.
Not really. They are all linked by the perspective of the main
character. Her name, Esperanza (Hope) is the key. The house is important,
but not what links the stories.
What links the stories is her perspective, which changes as she grows, as
she experiences. Elements from the earlier stories recur throughout the
book, and she is developing a sense of herself by looking at the lives of
those around her, where she lives, and what they do. There is a ton of
irony in the book. I think that's its strongest element, much moreso than
than metaphor, although there are some particularly effective metaphors.
You thus are left with all these images rather
> than conceptual frames by which to make sense of the book. It is wonderful in that it
> is very much about phrasing, but phrasing that has gaps.
That must have come from a literary theorist who had not even really read
the book. Typical. Have you seen "Metropolitan?" There's a guy in there
who reminds me of you. He just prefers to read literary analysis rather
than books themselves. That way, he explains, he gets to know what people
who are much better readers than himself think without having to actually
read the book himself and figure out what is really going on there.
> I haven't read that Wolf book in years, but i will never forget her metaphors. Even
> better is Gertrude Stein.
Woolf, unless you meant the even more contemporary writer, Naomi Wolf, I
believe.
> > I don't know if metaphors take the edge off at all. In fact, I think they
> > strengthen a sensation.
That's the point. THat's why they are used so much in [good] poetry, where
the intent is to boil experience down to its most essential elements. To
use the same terminology, the point is to "put the edge on."
> You are right, i was thinking more about irony.
Huh? Apparently, you don't grasp the concept that well. See what some of
the theorists have to say about it. That might help.
Sheesh.
matisse
Bonnie wrote:
>
> >I guess my problem is that getting certified would open up my opportunities
> >for
> >jobs, at the same time, however, they most likely won't be jobs i want.
> >
>
> Yes, we discussed this once. Well, that's a personal decision that only you
> can make. I love teaching in the public school system in NYC. For me it's a
> constant source of reward, but I'm very weird, and I'm also a cheap date.
>
I have decided that i am going to try to get certified. I am going to get some
information on Teach for Chicago in a little while, and i am going to really work
my ass off to get picked for this opportunity.
I was talking to one of my sister's yesterday (who is a math/special ed teacher)
and she agrees with me that i would most likely flourish in a high school setting.
The aspects i most love about teaching at the university level would be more
numerous in a high school setting.
>
> >However, do you think i would be better at working with education majors if
> >i
> >have had actual in school experience.
>
> They won't take you seriously unless you have real experience under your belt.
> BTW, when you say education majors, are you talking about people who want to
> teach the... <gulp> early grades? I was an English major, and I minored in
> secondary education. I did, however, take a children's literature class with a
> bunch of ed majors. It's a whole different animal. Not to be snooty, and
> stuff, but these were girls (ALL girls) who had a hard time reading anything
> above 'Charlotte's Web'
>
They just redid the way things work at UOI a few years ago. Now secondary teachers
are only minors in education. However, the course i teach is a required classe, and
thus i get everyone who wants to get certified in my classroom.
>
> You want your own house... on a teacher's salary?
>
> Oh, you dreamer, you!
>
>
high school teachers around here make more money on average then many professors.
It would actually be a very practical move for me to make. Public school teachers
do make more on average than college professors in any of the classes i would teach
at a university.
J
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 10 May 2000, matisse wrote:
[...]
> The aspects i most love about teaching at the university level would
> be more numerous in a high school setting.
Nubile young bodies, malleable and impressionable minds, or both?
The
- --
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | "Thinking is painful." -Layo Lehmann, ironically
All Rights Reserved | David, P.O. Box 236, Berkeley, CA 94704 U.S.A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBORm21Rz40he1RakNEQKE9ACgtnFnOr6KTsiGiQdg96DARMnD1jMAoKK1
TAoYkOwSnqBXD6N/2ljp2qKe
=HnC2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bonnie
>I was talking to one of my sister's yesterday (who is a math/special ed
>teacher)
>and she agrees with me that i would most likely flourish in a high school
>setting.
>The aspects i most love about teaching at the university level would be more
>numerous in a high school setting.
You mean like metal detectors, vacant stares when you ask for homework, hearing
the word "fuck" 15,0000 times a day (in the teacher's lounge), librarians
straight out of a casting call for "No Exit," and an administration of former
gym teachers that tell English teachers not to teach grammar... you mean that
high school setting?
Nah... I'm just kidding you, J. It's not really that bad.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Bonnie