Mart-deBlog

I just realized this simple, yet profound thing. That is, I will always need an interesting, uncanny story with the girl I'll ever get serious with (hypothetically speaking). I wonder how that is with other people. Imagine, you meet and kindoff like each other and then stay together because things are fine and then... a miserable life. How could such a relationship ever get interesting? Only in an arthouse movie played by Kidman, maybe. Or, you meet your other half in a bar, and you start talking... isn't that miserable? No, really the only way it can go is by twists of fate, a plot and mysterious glimpses of a destiny together; that is the only way I could meet. If there is no unreal beginning, I don't see how things can ever go beyond being 'pleasant.' How to tell the story of the true beginning of your children, if you would ever get them with one of the flat characters? Also, I know people who stage the story, those who create the storyline themselves; but I don't think that works either because things will always feel blown up or elevated. Deep down, you will always know whether the story is rooted in the world, or sadly dramatized with the world as a mere stage. THUS, I and a girl need to be brought together by a story; there really is no other way. And I cannot really see how that might be otherwise for anyone else...

I'm doing nothing. At all. And that does stuff to you. Life becomes undefined, a healthy twilight zone. So here is how laziness fits in my personal philosophy.
I believe that what we know is made solely of distinctions. Maybe even perception and experience have essentially the structure of boundaries. These distinctions come before the identification, for example recognizing your computer-screen happens through the boundary of your computer screen, the distinction between screen and the rest. Put simply, differences underly experience. So, studying means in a way that you constantly carve stuff up, for example, body becomes organs, and organs become nitty gritty cell-groups etc. or abstract schemas, learning of such distinctions between realism&idealism, subject&object, id&ego, rational&irrational numbers, right&wrong etc. etc. Becoming intellectual is nothing more than acquiring a set of these abstract distinctions. This is where I distinguish between intellectuality and wisdom, intellectual people get stuck in their group of distinctions, fast and sharp they carve their world up. This is this and that is that, and not otherwise. It makes old, dogmatic and arrogant. So now I take the time to rewire, to blur the stuff I learned and to experience what is in-between this and that. Just to go to Berlin with a primordial soup between my ears.
So far my defense of laziness.

By now I received the diploma. Thus, time for a sequel, time for some righteous pessimism. Because it's just an ugly thing, that diploma. I want to explain here, also to remember myself, how the diploma embodies to me all that it is ugly about studying.
Until now, the paper itself has only attracted respect from people you don't want respect from. It is (wannabe-)elitist, in a sad way, especially because it has the whole honors college written on it. But an honors college means nothing more than getting high grade easier than somewhere else. Texts are the same anywhere, if you ask me, and teachers definitely don't become better when they enter the campus' gates. And then, I was short of 0.01 point for a 'magna cum laude' instead of the 'cum laude', the diploma takes itself so serious. It makes me angry, especially cause my brother failed his exams with pretty much the same pathetic amount of points, sometimes no difference can make a real difference.
No, really, students are stupid. How much I dislike those people, that take language for intelligence, those who think they are genius because they know how to spell their latin-rooted words. Or those who believe in talents, the ones that think they are gifted, and who need to explain how little they studied when they get a bad grade, and they often have such an autistic focus on one subject or interest, and never dare to go outside the boundaries of their supposed talents. Also an evildoer is the concept of 'intelligence', a widespread sick concept. 'Intelligence' is still a test construct, like x in x+y=z. What was retarded yesterday is called dyslexia today, and still it only functions to separate people. But UC showed me super-IQ-kids that defined stupidity clearer than anyone else. Many suck up to professors, badly. Good grades, and the diploma, only show how much one is able to adapt to mediocrity, and how well one sees what is expected and how well one obeys to given tasks like a dog. I did it quite well, and it disgusts me far more than it makes me proud.
Also, I'm starting to feel the hangover from playing student for the last three years. I mean we all play our roles, but I have never played one for three subsequent years, with serious dedication. It started with being rejected, because of my Vrijeschool background which made me unfit in character to UC. But I believed I could be anything I wanted, and surely I could be a UC student. And so I showed them, and myself how well I could play the role. And, the longer you play a role, the sadder it becomes. I remember that passage of Sartre, about the waiter who tries too hard to be a waiter, too rigid, too polite, fleeing away from anguish: what Sartre saw as the nothingness we are, the freedom to give meaning without necessity, the burden of complete freedom. On UC, I and all the others, had to play the role of student to an extreme. And the result? I cannot quote Sartre without sounding pretentious. I cannot quote Sartre, without seeing it as a grounding of my arguments. I forget the fact, that I could have always stepped outside the role of student, anytime. I didn't and lost sight of many possibilities, of the other choices unto which to project character.
Still, somehow it was worth it all, I think. Time will tell. But I will always try to remember the tiny crimes, the ugliness it takes to get somewhere.