Pat Gunn (dachte) wrote,
Pat Gunn

When reason fails

Yesterday, I had a cup of hot chocolate before I left work. Predictably,today I woke up with a nasty headache. It's probably as close as I'llever come to a hangover-like situation. Whenever I have chocolate, Ithink to myself that I'm going to regret it later. And that sometimes stopsme, and sometimes it doesn't. This is an interesting theme, and I'm going tochew on it a bit.

I don't think reason really has failed there, but instead, that there's kindof a short-term selfishness that takes over. I know that I want thestuff, and that it mattered more to me then than the discomfort later. And,no matter how I might wish later that I don't have these fluctuations in thestrength of things I want, I still have them.

(section not shown)

I was just listening to Fiddler on the Roof, and suddenly realized that Ihad been mishearing some lyrics in "If I were a rich man" for all the yearsI've been listening to and singing it to myself. I always thought they weresaying "Posing proverbs that would cross the Rabbi's eyes", but I think nowthat that second word is problems, and refers to the rabbi in his secularrole rather than the religious one. It makes more sense in the context.My sense of hearing sucks. I'm constantly not hearing bits of conversationwhen people talk to me, and invariably instead of repeatedly asking them tospeak up, I try to infer what they said from the sounds and context. It usuallyworks out ok -- either it's unimportant or I figure it out ok, but sometimesI'm way off, or don't reply to something that turns out to be a question. Itmakes me look stupid, or not all there, or something. So people, if I startto get confused in conversation, or give a reply that's way off from whatyou're saying, SPEAK UP. And .. err.. no, it's really my problem. I should justask you to speak up. It's odd -- I'm good with music, so you'd figure that I'dhave good hearing. Maybe the answer is more complex -- perhaps the speechrecognition areas of my brain arn't as developed as they should be. *shrug*

I'm happy to say that I've reached a kind of equilibrium over the last twomonths. I found that most of the criticisms that Debb had about me werecompletely ignorant, and that I'm within normal ranges for a geek. Throughtalking about things with friends, I know that her criticism of my beingtoo dismissive of my own needs for her sake was on the mark, but mostof the other things were just wrong. Her notion of what is normal, forexample, is way off in several areas. It's been suggested that she lives insomething like Steve Jobs' famous RDF, and looking back at the things thatI dealt with, I'm amazed that I was so controlled that I was unable torealize that I needed to take responsibility to counter the RDF, and her,when necessary. But that's always the nature of these things -- you neversee them at the time. I've recovered my sense of self, and although it'sindeed changed, as far as I can tell the strongest taints it once had wereoff-base, and so I've removed them. Still, it's possible for me to be hurtby memories of that time. I had a yucky nightmare last night. Not fun towake up to a headache and from a nightmare at the same time.

Tonight, there's an interesting event at UPitt that I might attend.W00t! Also, hopefully my friend will get out of the hospital today! I hopeshe's not contagious, whatever it is. It'd be fun to go biking or runningor something.

I'm looking forward to much later tonight, when if I have the energy, I'llmaybe get POUND up to the point where I'll try to push all my existingentries into it.

Something I've been chewing on.. Large-scale capitalism, especially whenventure capitalism and stocks start to get involved, goes bad reallyeasily. However, there's no theoretical reason why small-scale capitalismcouldn't be just as messed up, is there? Maybe levels of competance aremore uniform in big companies than small ones. Is greed a constant? Orare stockowners distant enough from the company that they can't effectivelybe anything but an investor in for the profits? There's more to social goodthan profits, but it's not easy to see from a sufficient distance. Is therea clever solution to that? Perhaps ban people from owning more than Namount of stock, or stocks in more than N companies. Not sure, I'd need tothink about it. It's not as clever as legally forcing SUVs to be ugly tocounter people who have them as trophies. :)

Back to work.

Tags: music, philosophy

  • Still alive

    Been feeling a bit nostalgic. Not about to return to LiveJournal - their new ownership is unfortunate, but I wanted to briefly note what's been up…

  • Unplugging LJ

    It's about time I pulled the plug on the LJ version of my blog: 1) I'm much more active on G+ than I am with general blogging. I post many times a…

  • Mutual Trust

    I don't know which should be considered more remarkable: That a cat should trust a member of a far larger and stronger species that it can't…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded