Friday, November 13, 2009

Don't even try to read this.

every time I add to the beginning this gets less accessible

I keep going back to the beginning and adding things--this has long since ceased to be this week's reflection; I guess I'll have to try that later (I'm not even being sarcastic for once)

Sarcasm is hard to detect when written. Sarcasm is easy to detect when written.

*disclaimer: this post might be entirely nonsensical if you're not me.

===post still under construction===

Attribution is hard for me.

I lead an internal life--most of what I think, what I value, what I know, and what I am exists only in my head. I latch on to information that is intriguing or different no matter the source. The only thing that matters is the value of that information, or rather, whether or not the information is valuable. If it's valuable, I process the information (in ways I don't understand). Then--once I have totally assimilated the information, figured out its content, its significance to myself, and its bearing on the world--I drop it. I move on. I don't ever think about it again.

So as I've been writing this particular post, I've come to realize that I'm being unclear about a crucial point. All the thought processes I describe are subconscious. I don't actually decide what information is valuable, I've got a hard-wired filter that decides for me. I can't help it. That is pretty much true for every instance where it sounds like I'm just being dumb, or intransigent, or something--it's not meeeee, it's my braaain.

I don't mean that I have trouble writing a works cited page for a research paper. I mean that I have trouble answering questions like, "Please describe a situation in which you worked on a team and encountered a problem. How did you overcome this problem?" Give me a situation, and I'll tell you how I would act. Don't ask me about the past--it's over and done with and it doesn't matter right now. Anyways, what kind of problem should I talk about? Why are you even asking me this question? What's the point? What kind of team? Why?

This is also why I find writing this stupid blog so difficult. Sure, I like thinking about the issues presented in class and in the prompts (sometimes--it depends whether I see any value in them or not). But as soon as I reach a conclusion or draw a bit of insight, I immediately loose the drive to write it down. I've figured it out. It's old news. It is now so commonplace to me that there is no point in recording it in a blog--Why on earth would I write down the obvious?

I see that this presents a lot of problems in a class like ours. Communication of our ideas is paramount for fostering discussion, which in turn leads to (uhh, whatever it is, I'm sure it's important). [[so as I'm sitting here typing this, I drifted off into another train of thought, and had a small epiphany about language and its role {in society/for individual humans/across culture/re:my difficulties understanding prof. Arvan's modus operandi/etc.}, which I can't seem to bring myself to write down because it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be written down]]

Which doesn't lead into [the topic of] criticism, although I've been trying to lead into criticism for almost a month. I just haven't found exactly what I think about criticism. I think I tend to only listen to criticism if I see the value in it. I don't think hurt feelings are usually a problem for me. I tend to judge the criticizer on whether they are able to pick up on the important aspects of my performance. I dismiss criticism if I don't think it's warranted or valid. I don't get a lot of criticism. Unless I do and I just don't notice it.

broken disjointed disconnected intermittently-comprehensible abortive stilted underdeveloped unclear ineffective blurry bleary bleak blah bloated bland I don't care if you get it because it makes sense to me logorrhea

I hate writing (this blog? in general?).
I think.

"Language fits over experience like a strait-jacket." -William Golding
"Childhood is a disease- a sickness that you grow out of." -William Golding

Stephen King sometimes writes in unconventional ways that I find very accessible. Do you agree with this? The arts allow communication that transcends language. "let's argue semantics" Let's not. I think law is stupid (inane? frivolous? pointless? dangerously definitive? do any of these words convey the same meaning that "stupid" did for me?).

Now I have a compelling urge to delete all this. It's very weird.
a)afraid of judgment
b)does this fit the goals of the blog?
c)why on earth would anyone care to read this
The conscious answers are b) and c), but I can't quite convince myself a) isn't true.

You may have gathered that I like reading stream of consciousness writing which is what this has devolved into. We read a stream of consciousness Reklam in my German Literature class that was easier for me to understand than a lot of the other things we read.

anyways,

4 comments:

  1. You can be as precise as you wish with your language. That doesn't mean you are an effective communicator.

    I thought about doing a series of mini-blog posts about the topics I missed, but I decided I didn't have anything useful to add, even in abbreviated form.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I haven't read any Stephen King. Maybe I'll try that over the Winter break. Do you have a recommendation? I was going to suggest that you read Kafka if you haven't done that already.

    On your own comment, you are right. It's the difference between necessary and sufficient.

    Let's see if this helps. I don't quite agree with Mary-Ann Winkelmes on transparency, at least on the issue of timing and when to be transparent. I believe instead that sometimes students must experience something first and reflect on the experience and only then bring the issues out into the open. Being open prior to the experience and the ideas are too abstract to be useful, in my view.

    Ultimately, where the class is headed, is asking how we would know whether any particular intervention improved learning or made students more engaged. If you frame the question that way in advance, students are likely to think about exam scores and improvements in those and that thought might block other possible ways of considering the issue. So I wanted students to think of their own learning first.

    Whatever other merits/weaknesses of your post above, you didn't say one bit about exam scores. Thanks for that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Are you complacent with the fact that once something clicks you let it go? Do you ever wish that you could continue to develop it in different situations? Do you think there will ever be a time in your career that you may have to do that?

    ReplyDelete