<p>
Owowow. Ow. That’s a body-blow to those of us in the 51+ crowd. Use it! Love it! 50 is all the better if you do. CC’s a fun place to work out. Great, good-looking trainers.</p>
<p>Jazzymom, I really do not make age an issue, but I hope you;ll believe that others have. I used to have my age and a tongue-in-chek comment prominently displayed in my small profile. All I can say is that the number of remarks and direct questions about (in)experience and mere opinions DID skyrocket.</p>
<p>nevermind, not worth interupting the family reunion</p>
<p>^^^^Excellent decision, old-girl! …I mean Mame ;)</p>
<p>In all seriousness CGM, though I too have a bit of a time reading your words (mostly just spelling and punctuation—but I get the points) I always love the way you embody what I can only allude to. </p>
<p>CC would not be the same without you CGM. Seriously :)</p>
<p>Time for a trip to the eye doc! I think I am seeing things! (old eyes and all) ;)</p>
<p>truth be told, I type alot on my Ds laptop which has a small keypad, and for the last two weeks have fake nails, so make LOTS of typos</p>
<p>the nails, worth it…</p>
<p>[edit: The following was intended to be a pm to three separate individuals who have written me pms either to encourage, criticize or both. It felt dishonest to send them all versions of the same thoughts so I simply post it here as one. To any others, sorry for taking up the white space.]</p>
<p>…here goes:</p>
<p>It has never occurred to me to change minds, but I do enjoy showing that there are other minds and other ways of seeing…and in seeing, enjoying what you see and seeing truth in it. Frankly, I would be disappointed to see others here change their minds, either who they are or what they believe to be true. I am not evangelical. I think the world is more or less good as I have found it, as are the souls who enliven it. </p>
<p>I would be diminished to hear, for instance, TheDad, or Greybeard or Cheers say that they no longer believed liberalism was a viable or beautiful way to view the world; that they had lost faith in “progress”, Mini too…or that CGM has now given up posting–because she is frustrated in arranging her thoughts into sentences…she turns off the computer and turns away, forlorn. </p>
<p>It’s nice to see the clarity of thinkers like Xiggi and Aries. It is nice to be inspired and cheered on by the wit of driver. The cryptic puns of Rorosen. It is nice to know that people believe things because they really believe them to be true, not simply because they have the best argument or web site to consult and pillage.</p>
<p>I prefer them to believe everything they believe to be viable because I think I need, or delight in the colors they add to the world as I imagine it, as I have found it. Even here.</p>
<p>To me, the world is perfect and where it appears otherwise, it is because I am less than perfect–unripe–and see it only, as has been said, through a glass darkly, or, like a child though squinting eyes. </p>
<p>Like the vagabond who stubbles in the dark upon an elephant and leaning against its leg believes she has found respite in leaning against a gentle tree trunk…then another trips over what she believes to be a long hose, another winds into a large leathery fan… They compare their thoughts and, of course, nothing makes sense. They don’t see the thing, the real thing in its totality and understand it only as they stumble upon it and know nothing more than this: It is a grand world, and if it seems otherwise, it is because you cannot see it in its robust fullness and living clarity–even large mammals become static objects to those stumbling along through such a life. Still, believing this, I know I will never see it all at once and will have a hard time believing the absurd reports of others.</p>
<p>In this sense, CC, to me, is an empty amphitheatre. There are no hands and no eyes; you cannot hear the strain in the breath. It is, sensibly, like standing alone in the dark only to have the world illuminated briefly in a lightning strike that disappears just before you feel the thunder shake the ground. Standing there, you try to recall what you saw, questioning your gaze, your memory and direction. It is in some sense a wonderful, awful and awesome experience. And even in that, CC isn’t real. It does not exist in three dimensions, as real things do; it exists in two–something less then imagination and more than a lie. </p>
<p>I can’t say that it should be anything but the pastiche that it is. That does not make it easier, in some ways it is, perhaps, harder, but it is real, alive and pulsing with words, and that is nearly perfect for someone like me—to be real and alive in words. It doesn’t get better than this on a piece of paper, I suspect.</p>
<p>Keep on keeping on…or, as you were.</p>
<p>[you too, Rob]</p>
<p>FS,</p>
<p>I really just stumbled into the CC a few months back after spending a bit of time with my oldest seeing what people were saying informally about the schools he was interested in.</p>
<p>In the interest of disclosure, my background - I went to California State (CSU) (Northridge and Fullerton) schools and have degrees in Math and Sociology. As is common at CSU, I supported myself hand-to-mouth while I was in school.</p>
<p>CSU and Dartmouth are probably as diametrically opposite as you get. We were much more pragmatically orientated and less focused on what I think you would call the traditonal “liberal” education. It’s less “Great Works” and more “Get Ready for Work”.</p>
<p>You tend to reference a lot of things I am not familar with. Googling helps a little. I have slowly realized that, in many cases, you are not making a direct reference but refering to a turn of phrase from a specific reading of something, well something I haven’t read. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with you’re doing that. But you often leave it up to us to make the connection. I’m really more interested in having a discussion than getting a homework assignment.</p>
<p>Does that make me ignorant? By your standards, sure probably. But I know enough to distinguish between a conversation and a lecture. Hence, my earlier post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Com’on d-g, buck up.</p>
<p>As far as I know, this was my first response to you ever, post #137, in this thread:
Hardly offensive. In fact, specifically, non-offensive. This was your immediate response to the above, post #138
followed immediately, before I could respond to “What…?” with the very next post#139:
Dadguy, you say you can “distinguish between a conversation and a lecture;” can you also distinguish between a conversation and a condescending slap-down?</p>
<p>I think you can. </p>
<p>I can and did. It is, as you say, just something to consider…still–as I say–I have no problem with the way you post, either in style or form. As to content, we have, it seems, differing views of the matter; but why should that surprise us. </p>
<p>I’m always interested in the other view and personality as revealed through writing–though I tend not to focus on the personality or style of others in my response–just the stylized views (with a bit of wit, or such humor as I can afford as a girl conversationally degraded by “code-speak,” as you say). </p>
<p>As to your educational/employment history: I am a chemistry major, not English, and I have held-down a paying job since the beginning of my freshman year…including a full time job throughout my summer break. I haven’t taken a summer off since my sophomore year in high school and was very engaged in social-work throughout my life (you have no idea)…not intended as a complaint, I like the experience and interaction. I think it’s a pleasure to be gainfully employed and earn your way through life, even through school. </p>
<p>I’m glad you feel the same way about that.</p>
<p>oh, yeah…and thanks for the clarification, Dad.</p>
<p>You’re obviously very well-read and undoubtedly were before college. Doubly so for a chemistry major. Not too many of those folks offer much in way of literary criticism. At least, you should know how to apply a litmus test.</p>
<p>On those mornings where I shuffled off to class after working all night, I’d have to say it was less of a pleasure than usual.</p>
<p>FS</p>
<p>I see now that much of the disagreement in whether or not the humanities need to involve is my mental inclusion of the social sciences within the humanities when I responded. I understand now that those are separate things.</p>
<p>It is clear to me that the social sciences have to evolve over time, but not so the humanities. I am not throughly convinced that these should and do stay static but have not thought about it enough to have a firm opinion.</p>
<p>So the core of what you were saying makes more sense now even if I am still struggling over some of your details and your style.</p>