The funny thing about me and blogging is that usually when I feel like sitting down to write something, I don't have anything in particular that I want or need to say. So I end up rambling for a while until I happen on a thought and develop it from there.
But today, I think I'll just talk about what I've been up to.
Reading!! And playing violin. And a little viola.
I actually picked up my viola for the first time in *gasp* 3 weeks. I know, that's like, forever. It's ok, I can still play. There are two reasons I haven't been playing viola:
1. My bow is at about 2/3 hair right now. It could get warped or damaged in some way if I keep playing with it. I haven't rehaired my bow because, well I don't have a lot of cash and I needed to buy tires.
2. My viola just kind of sucks. It only kind of sucks, though. It doesn't completely suck. I can manage to get a pretty nice tone out of it but volume, projection, flexible sound color... not so much.
I started playing it again because my "violin" bow is really a super lightweight viola bow. So it works, and it gets a good tone but I have to put more weight into it than my other bow.
However, I have been playing my violin almost daily. I've been polishing up the Bach E Major Prelude, a fun little Vivaldi concerto I learned when I was like 13, and refreshing some of the Bach D minor that I learned years ago as well. I haven't attempted the chaconne yet, but I'd like to start it this summer. My wrist is still a little weak from spraining it in April so I think giant chords and crazy stuff like that are probably not the best idea right now. Maybe in another 4-6 weeks.
Tonight I checked out some Beethoven sonatas - Nos. 6-10 to be exact. I have a recording of No. 8 in G, which my teacher Igor also performed recently. I started reading No. 6 and I think I'll start learning it sometime soon as well.
So about the reading. Well, especially because I had the flu last week, I decided it was time to start some reading again.
Finished reading so far:
Friends and Fiddlers
Catherine Drinker Bowen
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (3rd time reading)
Douglas Adams
Epicenter: why the current rumblings in the Middle East will change your future
Joel C. Rosenberg
Currently reading:
When God Talks Back
T. M. Luhrmann
The Help
Kathryn Stockett
Haven't started:
Well technically I've started both of these books before, but haven't touched them in a while, and haven't started in again yet.
God Is Not Great
Christopher Hitchens
The Amadeus Book of the Violin: construction, history, and music.
Walter Kolneder
I'll give more info later... this post is long enough for now. :)
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Innocent until proven Human
One of the basic premises of any trial in a court of law in the United States is that the defendant - the person accused - is to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
How then, is it that millions of Americans have forsaken one of the most fundamental ideas of our nation's existence and have become grossly engaged in a case of deadly "doublethink" concerning what is undeniably *the* primary human right?
Yes, I'm talking about the right to life. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I would think that most reasonable humans on this planet, religious, agnostic, atheist, spiritual, materialist, etc., will acknowledge that other humans have a right to live. I'm sure anyone who reads this will be in full agreement with the this simple statement: Any human person has a right to live.
So where is this cognitive dissonance, "doublethink" or whatever you want to call it, occurring?
Apparently, in our legal, political, and medical criteria for considering who is human and possesses this right to life.
Persons are innocent until proven guilty. How about, "Persons are human until proven non-human." Just the idea of proving a person non-human may sound ludicrous. It should. However, millions of persons are treated as if they were non-human and are denied the first "unalienable" right spoken of by the founders of our nation: the right to life.
For the sake of my court-perspective and presumed-innocent argument, I will momentarily disregard the faith-based idea that the human spirit and soul are eternal and reside in the physical body from conception until it ceases to function (i.e. death).
With this in mind, I will freely acknowledge that there is some ambiguity about when, exactly, human life begins. Conception occurs when a sperm and an egg, two gametes that are (living) cells each with half of the standard genetic material, join to create what is called a zygote, which later implants on the uterine wall to continue developing as a human baby.
There are a few significant developmental events that happen that could pinpoint the beginning of humanity in a person. At about 4 weeks after conception, the embryo develops a single-chamber heart structure which begins pumping blood. At about the same time, the spinal cord and brain begin to develop. From this point on, a heartbeat is necessary to sustain life.
A baby's ability to detect and react to external stimuli, particularly sound, is present at around 16 weeks after conception. Finally, the famous point of "viability of a fetus," when a baby has about a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb (in America and countries with similar levels of medical technology) begins at about week 24 of pregnancy. This idea of viability is referred to in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion and influenced the third trimester limitation, which allowed states to legally protect an unborn baby past this point of development. In essence, it was a declaration that, prior to viability (a period of time between 24 -28 weeks of pregnancy), a fetus does not possess human rights such that the state or federal government must protect it and prosecute violators of these rights.
There are some vague and suspect phrases floating around in discussions like this. One of these is "potentiality of human life." When does "potential" become "actual?" Is it the point of viability that changes the "potential" into reality? It seems to me that having a baby's ability to survive outside the womb as the sole criterion to determine his or her humanity and right to life is a weak point that can and should not hold up in a court of law. What evidence supports this claim? I'm sure that the question of viability and potentiality of life is great grounds for philosophical arguments, but not the kind of arguments on which a law concerning the primary human right to life can be decided.
More to the point is this: how can you prove that a baby is human after the point of viability, and non-human before that point? Can the same be done at any other point from conception until birth?
If a baby's humanity cannot be DISPROVED to exist from conception, why does our nation still consider millions of babies non-human until proven human? What allows us to contradict the most basic premise in our legal system?
There is a somewhat obvious answer to this question - one which I will hopefully be able to further investigate. It is that the judges in the supreme court ruling did in fact have evidence to prove that a baby is non-human, at least to the point of viability, and therefore does not have the overriding right to life. However, my counter question is this: how much of the case was an argument about the humanity and right to life of an unborn baby? If the case had been presented with the perspective of a person's humanity being present until proven not to be, as any accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, would the judges have ruled the same way? I would hope that their decision was the result of a gross error in considering what the case was about, rather than the arbitrary declaration of when a baby actually possesses human life.
Moreover, philosophy, questioning, and arguments aside, I believe that from conception, an embryo, a fetus, a baby, a person, whatever you want to call him or her, is human and possesses full human rights. If you don't think so, then, prove it. Please. I would like to ease my conscience of the unprosecuted national crime of severe human rights violations to the tune of about 50 million since the enactment of Roe v. Wade.
In case you couldn't tell, my last sentence was a little sarcastic.
How then, is it that millions of Americans have forsaken one of the most fundamental ideas of our nation's existence and have become grossly engaged in a case of deadly "doublethink" concerning what is undeniably *the* primary human right?
Yes, I'm talking about the right to life. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I would think that most reasonable humans on this planet, religious, agnostic, atheist, spiritual, materialist, etc., will acknowledge that other humans have a right to live. I'm sure anyone who reads this will be in full agreement with the this simple statement: Any human person has a right to live.
So where is this cognitive dissonance, "doublethink" or whatever you want to call it, occurring?
Apparently, in our legal, political, and medical criteria for considering who is human and possesses this right to life.
Persons are innocent until proven guilty. How about, "Persons are human until proven non-human." Just the idea of proving a person non-human may sound ludicrous. It should. However, millions of persons are treated as if they were non-human and are denied the first "unalienable" right spoken of by the founders of our nation: the right to life.
For the sake of my court-perspective and presumed-innocent argument, I will momentarily disregard the faith-based idea that the human spirit and soul are eternal and reside in the physical body from conception until it ceases to function (i.e. death).
With this in mind, I will freely acknowledge that there is some ambiguity about when, exactly, human life begins. Conception occurs when a sperm and an egg, two gametes that are (living) cells each with half of the standard genetic material, join to create what is called a zygote, which later implants on the uterine wall to continue developing as a human baby.
There are a few significant developmental events that happen that could pinpoint the beginning of humanity in a person. At about 4 weeks after conception, the embryo develops a single-chamber heart structure which begins pumping blood. At about the same time, the spinal cord and brain begin to develop. From this point on, a heartbeat is necessary to sustain life.
A baby's ability to detect and react to external stimuli, particularly sound, is present at around 16 weeks after conception. Finally, the famous point of "viability of a fetus," when a baby has about a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb (in America and countries with similar levels of medical technology) begins at about week 24 of pregnancy. This idea of viability is referred to in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion and influenced the third trimester limitation, which allowed states to legally protect an unborn baby past this point of development. In essence, it was a declaration that, prior to viability (a period of time between 24 -28 weeks of pregnancy), a fetus does not possess human rights such that the state or federal government must protect it and prosecute violators of these rights.
There are some vague and suspect phrases floating around in discussions like this. One of these is "potentiality of human life." When does "potential" become "actual?" Is it the point of viability that changes the "potential" into reality? It seems to me that having a baby's ability to survive outside the womb as the sole criterion to determine his or her humanity and right to life is a weak point that can and should not hold up in a court of law. What evidence supports this claim? I'm sure that the question of viability and potentiality of life is great grounds for philosophical arguments, but not the kind of arguments on which a law concerning the primary human right to life can be decided.
More to the point is this: how can you prove that a baby is human after the point of viability, and non-human before that point? Can the same be done at any other point from conception until birth?
If a baby's humanity cannot be DISPROVED to exist from conception, why does our nation still consider millions of babies non-human until proven human? What allows us to contradict the most basic premise in our legal system?
There is a somewhat obvious answer to this question - one which I will hopefully be able to further investigate. It is that the judges in the supreme court ruling did in fact have evidence to prove that a baby is non-human, at least to the point of viability, and therefore does not have the overriding right to life. However, my counter question is this: how much of the case was an argument about the humanity and right to life of an unborn baby? If the case had been presented with the perspective of a person's humanity being present until proven not to be, as any accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, would the judges have ruled the same way? I would hope that their decision was the result of a gross error in considering what the case was about, rather than the arbitrary declaration of when a baby actually possesses human life.
Moreover, philosophy, questioning, and arguments aside, I believe that from conception, an embryo, a fetus, a baby, a person, whatever you want to call him or her, is human and possesses full human rights. If you don't think so, then, prove it. Please. I would like to ease my conscience of the unprosecuted national crime of severe human rights violations to the tune of about 50 million since the enactment of Roe v. Wade.
In case you couldn't tell, my last sentence was a little sarcastic.
to make up for my previous lack(s) of brevity
There are those who Will, and those who Won't. The rest of us, for one reason or another, or ten-thousand, are scattered willy-nilly between these two ends.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Verbals and Nounites
Isn't it peculiar the wanderings of mind and attention that some of us have when setting to a task?
Having decided it was high time to write another post, I opened up Google+ in my browser. After viewing a few updates and "+1"-ing something, I searched for some sort of "Post Blog" button in vain and realized that Google+ was not the correct avenue for my intent. At about the same time, I also realized there was something I needed to do (brush my teeth) that I could combine with thinking about what to write. However, by the time I had actually opened the Blogger platform and gotten up from my desk, the fleeting thought of dental hygiene had long since dissipated and I was left wondering what it was exactly that I had gotten up to do. I believe there's an old joke of Bill Cosby's (correct me if I'm wrong) about the button each of us has our our respective backsides which enables us, just as we are sitting down again, to remember why we had gotten up before. Apparently mine works.
Well, there you have it, a long, rambling introduction with little point but a little nice verbal imagery for your reading pleasure.
I sometimes think my writing style belongs in a time that is past, in which writing served more to stimulate the intellect and provoke the thinkage of great thoughts. Or at least it seems to me that older writing spends a great deal more time simply basking in the pleasure of language, and all the ways it can express the human experience, and more importantly, recreate that experience for the reader. These days, I even find myself needing to re-read lines or entire paragraphs that contain longer and more complex thoughts, though they may be intended for a public audience.
I've also sometimes puzzled at my apparent lack of vocabulary when speaking versus the veritable dictionary in my head that gleefully offers words that may or may not have been used commonly a century ago. I know it's not really that much of a mystery, particularly since I'm generally more introverted than not and that social interactions that involve using words can often bring a restriction in my brain, like a very mild sort of anxiety. My words are more free when I'm alone and can see them coming out on a page or my computer screen. They willingly meander out of the recesses of my mind and spill into my brain and, instead of "Why can't I think of the words I want?" my internal question is, "What words do I want to use?"
However, as a few of my good friends could tell you, the use of words never particularly eludes me and I'm generally good at talking. Sometimes I'm good at talking too much.
However, I'm always best at talking in two particular instances: First, in which I know the subject matter very well and am eager to share it (typically prefaced with "Did you know..." or "Actually...") and second, when I say whatever the heck happens to be wandering around my brain at that particular instance.
Now it just seems like this is one rather long and narcissistic post. (Someone should make up a tongue twister with the word "narcissistic" in it.) Well, in my defense, it is almost 3:00am and I am not in the best of sorts, as a nasty cold is currently keeping me up. What else do I have to muse but myself, my misery, my ecstasy, my complacency or transcendency? Why yes, I did just make up that word. No, I haven't actually contemplated any of those, and what? I'm sorry, I think my ears are stuffy - did you say "saw the worried programs"or "solve the world's problems?"
Well I'm afraid my tiredness has closed the rusty word gates, stopping the flow of my verbals and nounites from transcendencing my nervous system into the great beyond. Funny how all of this was created by neural impulses. Or was it? Am I merely the "electricity in my brain"? I'll leave you with that thought. Goodnight.
Having decided it was high time to write another post, I opened up Google+ in my browser. After viewing a few updates and "+1"-ing something, I searched for some sort of "Post Blog" button in vain and realized that Google+ was not the correct avenue for my intent. At about the same time, I also realized there was something I needed to do (brush my teeth) that I could combine with thinking about what to write. However, by the time I had actually opened the Blogger platform and gotten up from my desk, the fleeting thought of dental hygiene had long since dissipated and I was left wondering what it was exactly that I had gotten up to do. I believe there's an old joke of Bill Cosby's (correct me if I'm wrong) about the button each of us has our our respective backsides which enables us, just as we are sitting down again, to remember why we had gotten up before. Apparently mine works.
Well, there you have it, a long, rambling introduction with little point but a little nice verbal imagery for your reading pleasure.
I sometimes think my writing style belongs in a time that is past, in which writing served more to stimulate the intellect and provoke the thinkage of great thoughts. Or at least it seems to me that older writing spends a great deal more time simply basking in the pleasure of language, and all the ways it can express the human experience, and more importantly, recreate that experience for the reader. These days, I even find myself needing to re-read lines or entire paragraphs that contain longer and more complex thoughts, though they may be intended for a public audience.
I've also sometimes puzzled at my apparent lack of vocabulary when speaking versus the veritable dictionary in my head that gleefully offers words that may or may not have been used commonly a century ago. I know it's not really that much of a mystery, particularly since I'm generally more introverted than not and that social interactions that involve using words can often bring a restriction in my brain, like a very mild sort of anxiety. My words are more free when I'm alone and can see them coming out on a page or my computer screen. They willingly meander out of the recesses of my mind and spill into my brain and, instead of "Why can't I think of the words I want?" my internal question is, "What words do I want to use?"
However, as a few of my good friends could tell you, the use of words never particularly eludes me and I'm generally good at talking. Sometimes I'm good at talking too much.
However, I'm always best at talking in two particular instances: First, in which I know the subject matter very well and am eager to share it (typically prefaced with "Did you know..." or "Actually...") and second, when I say whatever the heck happens to be wandering around my brain at that particular instance.
Now it just seems like this is one rather long and narcissistic post. (Someone should make up a tongue twister with the word "narcissistic" in it.) Well, in my defense, it is almost 3:00am and I am not in the best of sorts, as a nasty cold is currently keeping me up. What else do I have to muse but myself, my misery, my ecstasy, my complacency or transcendency? Why yes, I did just make up that word. No, I haven't actually contemplated any of those, and what? I'm sorry, I think my ears are stuffy - did you say "saw the worried programs"or "solve the world's problems?"
Well I'm afraid my tiredness has closed the rusty word gates, stopping the flow of my verbals and nounites from transcendencing my nervous system into the great beyond. Funny how all of this was created by neural impulses. Or was it? Am I merely the "electricity in my brain"? I'll leave you with that thought. Goodnight.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
'nother post, entry, thing!
Every time I want to write a new entry, I always *almost* click the "New Blog" button before remembering that clicking it creates an entire new weblog, not just a new post. Annoying.
I'm not exactly sure why I'm posting right now, except that I haven't for a while, and I feel like it. I think those two reasons perfectly justify a post.
Life has been pretty chill lately. I finally played my senior recital. I'm in the process of signing up for my last undergrad class, which was supposed to be finished LAST fall but unfortunately I had some difficulty doing so, as I've discussed previously.
HOWEVER. Lately I've been in a very positive place emotionally, and as I was telling a friend the other day, realizing that a lot of the things I have disliked about myself, particularly concerning other people/social interactions, have been due to just being below a certain level of happiness.
Speaking of happiness, I think a lot of our psychological terminology has tried to elaborate on this feeling, talking about "positive" and "affirmative" and all these other terms. Well, what ever happened to plain old "happy?" I think a lot of us U.S. Americans try to cram so much in our lives that we have to do all this positive thinking and stress management. Here's an idea: how about we start throwing things out of our lives that contribute to stress and excess complication, busyness, and general life clutter. I think most of the happiest people are ones with simple lives.
My life is simple right now, and I like it. I know I'm sitting on a bubble that's about to pop - I desperately need money, I have to finish my degree, I have to figure out what I'm going to do for the next few years, and I have to figure out how I'm going to pay off my loans.
But I'm learning a lesson. Keep my life simple. Have daily tasks, not long-term obligations looming over me. When I do have long-term projects, (which will actually be basically all the time - the primary one being practicing my instrument), break it up into daily goals and just live one day at a time. Don't worry about tomorrow. Don't worry about next week. Don't worry about yesterday, or last week.
At least for me, the simpler my life is and the fewer things I have to do (i.e. I can spend all of my time on just a few very significant things), the happier I am. Put that together with regular social time with good, honest, positive friends, and I think it doesn't matter what I end up doing for a living. I'll be satisfied.
I'm not exactly sure why I'm posting right now, except that I haven't for a while, and I feel like it. I think those two reasons perfectly justify a post.
Life has been pretty chill lately. I finally played my senior recital. I'm in the process of signing up for my last undergrad class, which was supposed to be finished LAST fall but unfortunately I had some difficulty doing so, as I've discussed previously.
HOWEVER. Lately I've been in a very positive place emotionally, and as I was telling a friend the other day, realizing that a lot of the things I have disliked about myself, particularly concerning other people/social interactions, have been due to just being below a certain level of happiness.
Speaking of happiness, I think a lot of our psychological terminology has tried to elaborate on this feeling, talking about "positive" and "affirmative" and all these other terms. Well, what ever happened to plain old "happy?" I think a lot of us U.S. Americans try to cram so much in our lives that we have to do all this positive thinking and stress management. Here's an idea: how about we start throwing things out of our lives that contribute to stress and excess complication, busyness, and general life clutter. I think most of the happiest people are ones with simple lives.
My life is simple right now, and I like it. I know I'm sitting on a bubble that's about to pop - I desperately need money, I have to finish my degree, I have to figure out what I'm going to do for the next few years, and I have to figure out how I'm going to pay off my loans.
But I'm learning a lesson. Keep my life simple. Have daily tasks, not long-term obligations looming over me. When I do have long-term projects, (which will actually be basically all the time - the primary one being practicing my instrument), break it up into daily goals and just live one day at a time. Don't worry about tomorrow. Don't worry about next week. Don't worry about yesterday, or last week.
At least for me, the simpler my life is and the fewer things I have to do (i.e. I can spend all of my time on just a few very significant things), the happier I am. Put that together with regular social time with good, honest, positive friends, and I think it doesn't matter what I end up doing for a living. I'll be satisfied.
Friday, March 8, 2013
wee hours
I wonder why they're called the "wee hours" of the morning. Are they really any smaller, shorter, "wee"-er, than any other hours of the day?
But here I am, in the wee hours, typing away. I really liked my "violhomme" username/logo/moniker idea. But for some reason I decided to type the words "viol" and "homme" in the french-to-english google translator. Well, suffice it to say, I will no longer be using "violhomme." If you really want to know why, you can look it up yourself.
So why am I writing. I don't know. Because I've neglected my blog, and it's lonely. Poor thing. Also I decided that "expression" as a title was too... cliché, I guess... or obviously trying to be sophisticated and mysterious but just as obviously failing. I figured "electricity in my brain" was an apt, if extremely simplistic, description of what is actually happening when I sit down to write. But it does provide a nice little visual. You can almost see the whitish blue sparks zapping back and forth between my neurons as I type in the early morning darkness.
Which reminds me of an article I read today, someone posted it on facebook I suppose. Anyway, it was about the Glial cells in our brains, which, as it turns out, (surprise surprise) have a lot more to do with how the brain works than anybody realized before. They're not just nutritional support but apparently can have a great effect on what parts of the brain are interacting and connecting. Interesting stuff.
I decided for now to go with violomio (twitter/youtube). It's also almost kind of cliché but in a cuter way. Hm. I guess I probably don't really want to be cute either. *sigh.* I also found out that "viole mio" could mean "my violets" in Italian.
In other news, I'm starting to learn a little bit of spanish.
You know, this time in the morning is more random than anything else. I think I'm going to start calling these the whimsical hours of the morning.
But here I am, in the wee hours, typing away. I really liked my "violhomme" username/logo/moniker idea. But for some reason I decided to type the words "viol" and "homme" in the french-to-english google translator. Well, suffice it to say, I will no longer be using "violhomme." If you really want to know why, you can look it up yourself.
So why am I writing. I don't know. Because I've neglected my blog, and it's lonely. Poor thing. Also I decided that "expression" as a title was too... cliché, I guess... or obviously trying to be sophisticated and mysterious but just as obviously failing. I figured "electricity in my brain" was an apt, if extremely simplistic, description of what is actually happening when I sit down to write. But it does provide a nice little visual. You can almost see the whitish blue sparks zapping back and forth between my neurons as I type in the early morning darkness.
Which reminds me of an article I read today, someone posted it on facebook I suppose. Anyway, it was about the Glial cells in our brains, which, as it turns out, (surprise surprise) have a lot more to do with how the brain works than anybody realized before. They're not just nutritional support but apparently can have a great effect on what parts of the brain are interacting and connecting. Interesting stuff.
I decided for now to go with violomio (twitter/youtube). It's also almost kind of cliché but in a cuter way. Hm. I guess I probably don't really want to be cute either. *sigh.* I also found out that "viole mio" could mean "my violets" in Italian.
In other news, I'm starting to learn a little bit of spanish.
You know, this time in the morning is more random than anything else. I think I'm going to start calling these the whimsical hours of the morning.
Monday, December 17, 2012
3am...
...and I can't sleep. What to do? Blog of course.
For some reason when I'm on a break from school I suddenly have the urge to do things that are more productive than just browsing facebook or watching some shows online. Perhaps it's the relief from feeling like I'm required to produce some sort of output that actually allows me to do that very thing. But when I'm under the pressure of daily classes, rehearsals, and other means of energy expenditure involved with so-called "learning" and/or "working," my natural inclinations to do moderately productive activities drops to an all-time low.
Speaking of school, I think I'm done.
The reason for the uncertainty is that I don't know yet whether I actually passed all my classes. And before you all go offering ridiculous platitudes such as "oh I'm sure you did fine" or "you're too smart to fail" and all that silly stuff, I really mean it: I did very poorly this semester. I struggled very much to get a very few assignments done on time, and with some that were heavily weighted I turned in very late or not at all.
The only thing I know I have yet to complete is my Senior recital. Given that I (hopefully) won't be taking any classes, I have a lot more confidence that I'll be able to pull that off without any trouble.
Speaking of which: it's Saturday, March 16th, at 2:30pm here at UOP. Mark your calendars.
But back to my original thought. Blogging/journaling is something I value, yet I have very little motivation or inspiration to do it when I'm in a full-time school (and, I suspect, work) schedule. I wish I did. I like sharing my life with others and it also really helps me clear my mind and get the mental hamsters off their squeaky wheels (you know those thoughts that just kind of go around and around and never seem to get anywhere? yeah. I thought so).
Hm. Well, I should take advantage of this extended break then. I'll be working part time, hopefully tutoring a lot, playing some music, practicing a lot, and perhaps doing some reading and hopefully blogging.
My next blog will be about some of my ideas for music that I'll be working on. Send me messages so I update you soon!
For some reason when I'm on a break from school I suddenly have the urge to do things that are more productive than just browsing facebook or watching some shows online. Perhaps it's the relief from feeling like I'm required to produce some sort of output that actually allows me to do that very thing. But when I'm under the pressure of daily classes, rehearsals, and other means of energy expenditure involved with so-called "learning" and/or "working," my natural inclinations to do moderately productive activities drops to an all-time low.
Speaking of school, I think I'm done.
The reason for the uncertainty is that I don't know yet whether I actually passed all my classes. And before you all go offering ridiculous platitudes such as "oh I'm sure you did fine" or "you're too smart to fail" and all that silly stuff, I really mean it: I did very poorly this semester. I struggled very much to get a very few assignments done on time, and with some that were heavily weighted I turned in very late or not at all.
The only thing I know I have yet to complete is my Senior recital. Given that I (hopefully) won't be taking any classes, I have a lot more confidence that I'll be able to pull that off without any trouble.
Speaking of which: it's Saturday, March 16th, at 2:30pm here at UOP. Mark your calendars.
But back to my original thought. Blogging/journaling is something I value, yet I have very little motivation or inspiration to do it when I'm in a full-time school (and, I suspect, work) schedule. I wish I did. I like sharing my life with others and it also really helps me clear my mind and get the mental hamsters off their squeaky wheels (you know those thoughts that just kind of go around and around and never seem to get anywhere? yeah. I thought so).
Hm. Well, I should take advantage of this extended break then. I'll be working part time, hopefully tutoring a lot, playing some music, practicing a lot, and perhaps doing some reading and hopefully blogging.
My next blog will be about some of my ideas for music that I'll be working on. Send me messages so I update you soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)