I envision a future in which man is judged by his peers and by society solely on his creation – on his music, on his art, on his invention. Where every human life is valued because every human life is the potential for creation. And where people understand the following: Respecting every individual’s ability to create is respecting society as a whole, for stability comes from diversity, and diversity comes from freedom.

There are those who say if everyone received everything they ever needed, then nobody would ever work. That may be true. I also, however,  believe that we need to create. It’s in our blood, it’s in our spirits. It’s human. I believe that if everyone received food and clothing and shelter, we wouldn’t actually cease to make progress — in fact, I believe we would make more progress. You may ask, what incentive is there? Why would anyone waste time creating? The answer is quite simple. It’s not respect from colleagues. It’s not the survival of the human race, even. It’s individual. It’s selfish. It’s the sheer feeling of accomplishment. The very pride in our individual selves that defines us as separate and distinct from others. It’s that happiness in becoming something tangible, something real and solid and definite, that one feeling that no amount of money could ever buy.

You don’t get that feeling? Well I do. But only when I separate myself from the expectations of others. Only when I separate myself from the constant pressure of retaining the ability to survive. But when those needs are met, when I feel completely safe — from financial collapse, from judgment — that’s when I look ahead. That’s when I strive forward. And I believe that every single human being in this world was born with that capacity. The desire to look forward, to create, to be.

Can every man be an artist? Perhaps not now, but I envision a future in which he can. In which manual labor can be done with our inventions alone and our minds are free to wander and wonder. To search the great vastness of this universe, but first, to understand our planet and ourselves. Every man was born an artist. And every man is capable of so much creative ambition, if only he didn’t have to worry about the little things. Those little things that are necessary for our survival, but by no means sufficient for our happiness. Once we can look past the little things, only then will we be able to truly come together and free our minds from the constraints of our bodies. Only then will the sheer brilliance of our ideas, in all their radiant, sparkling color, explode us into the darkness of the unknown. And the starlight emanated from each of us individually, together, will reach the deepest corners of our universe. The beginning, the end, and the spaces in between the lines. Truth will kneel before us, unreservedly, and offer us Perfection. And we will, without hesitation, accept.

Was there a rubric for Exam 2? It seems to me like you expected either (1) certain things to be talked about or (2) answers to be explained in ways, which weren’t actually noted in the question. In other words, it seems you expected more than that for which the questions were asking. Also, if you could explain how you came up with the grades you did, I would really appreciate it (i.e. a rubric, if one exists).

Unrelated, I got my reaction paper back for Arable Farming, etc. by Andrew Patterson with the response “This needs to be redone. There’s no discussion of agriculture.” I was a bit perplexed by this… I had assumed that the only requirement for the reaction paper was to be my reaction to the article (which this was). If there were further requirements I was unaware of, it would have been nice to have been told of them at the beginning of the semester rather than a month from the final. Can you shed any light on this?

Thanks,

b

~~~~

b,

If you feel you have answered the questions on the exam well and have put forth a good effort, we can discuss your exam.  You can make an appointment or come to my office hour.

Regarding reaction papers, I did discuss reaction paper expectations in the beginning of the semester.  I informed students that there was much freedom in writing these papers but they would be returned if unacceptable.  I did said in class that it had to be about the assigned reading.

For the future.  Do not send passive aggressive correspondence to me.  I will be happy to address any of your complaints and concerns, but all of our discussions will be respectful.

Neil

~~~

Let me be frank, then.

One of the biggest struggles I’ve had in life has been deciding how much to rely on others. It’s hard for me, because there’s no middle ground. Okay, that’s not entirely true: there is middle ground of sorts, but when there is, I know it’s been fabricated; I tell myself I can rely on people because that’s how normal people interact. Normal people “hang out”, normal people “have friends”,  normal people  can enjoy other people’s company for the mere sake of its being better than loneliness.

Let me tell you what’s better than loneliness. Rachmaninov’s Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini is better than loneliness. Sibelius’ 6th is better than loneliness. Debussy’s String Quartet. Die Kunst der Fuge. Mendelssohn’s Octet. Dvorak’s Cello Concerto.

When a mother says to her child, “It’s going to be okay, don’t worry, it will all turn out alright,” that’s what music is for me.

Rachmaninov: “Don’t worry.”

Sibelius: “It will all turn out alright.”

Whenever I start feeling that heaviness in my chest from wanting to be with someone, I get scared. I don’t want to be more alone. I don’t want to put all my eggs in one basket, as they say. But it’s hard not to when there’s no middle ground. Sometimes the person must be relegated to the position of A Mere Acquaintance (even though I often pretend my acquaintances are all actually friends). This is the easier route, to be sure. To go back to being alone, with music.

But sometimes I can’t do that. Sometimes I have to try. I get this impossible fantasy that it might be perfect. It might make me feel safe and full. It might last forever. What am I going to do if it doesn’t? Relegate him to the trash heap?

What if he’s not the problem? What if I am, for wanting to much, for trusting too much, for relying on someone else… too much?

In an ideal relationship, would trust grow mutually, at similar rates? Or would it be chaotic, wild, unpredictable?

Let me tell you something — I’ve always wanted to be independent. When I was little, I used to dream of my “ideal life”. Strangely enough, my ideal life was a lonely one. I wanted to have my own glass-enclosed abode in a forest clearing in Washington somewhere, within driving distance of Seattle. The basement would be a haven for music and knowledge. Books would line the walls and I would just learn and create, learn and create all day. I want to create more than anything. I don’t care what, as long as it’s something I could call art, as long as it’s something I could be proud of.

The question is, where does someone else fit into this? I used to think, What is the type of person I would need? What sort of person would fit into my ideal life? Well, perhaps my ideal life wasn’t ideal to begin with. Perhaps it needed someone, but I was to unfamiliar with relying on people to even be able to envision it.

Or is it the other way around? What if I never wanted others to rely on me?

I’m not a stable person. I’m not really grounded. I’m not always even very nice. How could I expect anyone to live with that? How could I expect anyone to live with my taking everything too literally, with arguments that rely only on logic and a view of the world that’s black-and-white (and wrong in so many ways)? With honesty when honesty is the last thing people want? With my obnoxious ramblings?

Perhaps I just need to give more and take less. To be stronger for others. To be there when people need me. For anyone who might ever need me.