I don't understand my own feelings. And I would love to be simply different. I hate the fact that I 'm so pessimistic and it is so easy to make me feel depressed. I'd like to be be a cheerful, energetic, "it-could-always-be-worse" kind of person. I'd like to be able to have more control over my own self and train myself to do things that I don't feel like doing, especially when it is beneficial for all people involved, or not to do things that are potentially destructive. I would need to change my whole frame of mind. I think that I will waste my life if I don't, but I don't even know where to start. Can we really change our own personality so much?
Since I came back from Poland I have been constantly experiencing a very disturbing separation from the world around me, I'm beginning to feel that I will end up in a mental institution one day. I don't feel like talking... and that is very unusual for me. I feel like shunning reality. I feel vulnerable and ridiculously immature. I see my future diagnosis description - "derangement of personality and impaired contact with reality causing delusions and hallucinations, overall deterioration of normal social functioning." Yep, that's me.
My school is a total abstraction, on every plane possible. They drive me crazy in Syntax when I see the process of creating some theories and adjusting, adjusting, adjusting when a problem arises. It sounds like a great big fake sometimes - stretching reality so that it fits the box nicely. Basically, this is the idea - they would like to define innate language structures in the simplest form possible so that it explains the famous Plato's problem - how is it possible for children to learn a language so fast exposed to such an imperfect input? Why do we think that it has to be so simple - can't our brain process more sophisticated structures? I feel that all of these theories are mostly dictated by our very limited understanding of the world and human brain. All these big name linguists are like children trying to figure out how things work never realizing that maybe the tools they are using are far too small for the job. We are so restricted by our perceptions of the world and so presumptuous in thinking that we know enough to make claims about things that we have hardly access to. Maybe that is why it all sounds like gibberish sometimes; all these attempts to explain, account for, or even just scratch the surface... How can something be called science if it is based on "because he said so" ideas? Even if somebody sounds logical and improves their theories as data flows in, it still stays a "because I call it so" thing. Marcel (my Syntax prof) would kill me if he read this post. He'd say I'm an ignorant (which would not be that far away from the truth...). I'd be an outcast forever.
OK, I managed to redirect my mind and Syntax became my victim to let me relieve some of my frustration about all the other things that I seem to have little control over in my life. Better Syntax than something else. That said, I have to come back to my lovely Government and Binding Theory, which works better than any sleeping pills I have tried so far...
4 comments:
Which is the problem I have with academia in general - a set of theories, texts, 'great men' become established, and challenging those ideas is heresy. (A word I use deliberately, because there are parallels with the organised mass-religions.)
I was recently interviewed for a job at Warsaw Uni, and more or less blew it because I refused to adhere to Grammar Translation or any of those other methodological theories. For me, it's the practical reality of getting students to use English as clearly and effectively as possible which counts most.
Theories are steps on a ladder, not jails to be confined in.
Hmmm...Theories, like everyone's everyday practices or even self-knowledge, are always incomplete, created from a specific perspective even when they masquerade as universal, and hence often plain wrong. The first years of graduate schoool are about learning other people's theories. And this makes clear how wrong they are. But if being wrong is so essential to thinking, and hence to the human condition, can it really be all that bad? And if it is such a basic aspect of being human and so common and not so bad does it make sense then to posit a disconnect between reality and our perceptions of it? I don't think so (is that a theory). And if the disconnect is not so stark as some of us portray it, then the issue of staying sane in grad school and life is less about perfecting our perception of reality and rather about living with our flaws and hence our very humanity. It can even be remarkably tasty to do so at times!
You need to know before you do. You have to learn before you critique. I know, I know. Still, Syntax is not truly a science for me - and it tries very hard to pose as one. Grammmaticality judgements of native speakers and indirect elicitations from 4 year olds are very problematic research methods for me. And Chomsky, brilliant as he is, has never even worked with human subjects - he is the best example of an armchair linguist... And the whole East Coast loves the guy - it's only on the west that other theories are being considered. At least that's the situation in the U.S.
I know there is a lot to learn from all of these guys and that is what I intend to do, but let me grumble about it from time to time as some of it does not go down easily. Not to mention I have a lot of distractions in my life that do make these things sound like coming from a different planet. But that would be a little difficult to imagine for people who have never experienced these kinds of burdens so I won't even try to describe them. It is not only things that one has to do, it is mostly what feelings and emotions one has to deal with while doing those and other things.
And for the record, I'm not trying to perfect my perception of reality - I'm trying to perfect my reality... does it make me even more lunatic? And who says that accepting our flaws is the way to go? What about conquering them? Shouldn't one at least try? Embracing the flaws... is it not a bit too comfortable an idea of what's human? Besides, tasty is not always healthy. You can choke even on the sweetest piece of candy...
candy can be nourishing, especially to a starving person. that's an important thing to remember, even if you're not starving. Actually, it's important to recall especially if you're not starving. Then you'll know what candy is for, how it shouldn't be abuse, but how tasty treats as part of a balanced diet can make the grad student healty, wealthy and wise! See, even stupid jokes are essential to the human condition. And their stupidity implies that they're more than imperfect and yet an essential source of goodwill, self-knowledge, and even bonding between people.
Post a Comment