March 3rd, 2008
|09:31 am - Oh, and:|
To those aware that, as of two months ago, I had plans to move west, those plans are entirely scratched.
I will be in Columbus for the foreseeable future.
Resolutions are coming. Plans are solidifying. Things are changing here and there.
To those unaware, well, no worries: Perhaps 20 people (on and offline) knew, and only those people who actually asked about my personal life (or came to a Grove business meeting) between June '07 and January '08 were among them.
Current Location: Southeast of Disorder
Current Mood: busy
Current Music: "Pre-You", -JB
I found the mountain ranges years ago. I actually prefer the Eastern mountains: out west they're young and lack wisdom. Here, there are so many things that they can tell a person.
The nice thing about mountains, though, is that they will always be there. And the nice thing about stability is that I can actually afford the gas, vacation time, and gear to get there.
However, if there were stability here, I'd be a lot happier at the moment: there is none in the job I'm currently doing. What I'm doing now can only be well-described as an adventure.
Besides, it's better than the stability that comes from things like Grad School: that locks you up and doesn't let you go. For a while, I was complacent with that. I'm not now, because something changed here, and it changed for the better.
Graduate school locks you up? Where did you get that crazy idea? Graduate school opens the door to a billion new possibilities! And that's not even counting all the new faces in new places. :)
But then, it definitely depends on your field. Graduate school for someone studying what *I* do allows people like me to launch into a wider variety of careers and likely be more successful in all of them. That's because "communications" is a broad field with highly transferable skills, such that even if I got a master's in public relations only that would still make me substantially more desirable for, say, an advertising job. Even having a master's degree would be somewhat of a big deal because it's not all that common for people in my field to have one if they aren't pursuing a PhD.
For religious studies, I'm not sure. Would the investment (both financially and otherwise) be so intense that doing anything else seemed too unjustifiable to live with? If so, not going is a very important decision for you indeed.
I don't know why I was surprised by your happy talk of potential upcoming stability; you love to talk about change, but you are actually one of the most "same" people I have ever met in terms of being of the fw I know who still holds the same job, lives in the same house, has relationships that last for years, etc. You talk about leaving frequently but you never do; you accept the status quo and then adjust your attitude to fit. Which is NOT necessarily a bad thing at all -- I'm just too young (I think? this is my theory?) to relate to how that can satisfy you at this point in my life. I'll probably get there eventually.
For me, RS was a lock. It was a lock I was happy with, granted, but it was definitely a lock. It had a feeling of comfort and resignation: Back to the past, where things were rosy and simple. Back to times where things didn't change, and goals were set for you instead of by you. It's also paying someone else to validate you, which, at the point I was at last June, was the only way I could have gotten validation. Now, though, there is a potential for validation to take the form of money to me.
The fact of the matter really is this: my lot in life has gone from one where I was stuck and confined, and the only way to get out was to start over, to a place where I've been given a change to build on what I have learned and done in the past. I spent 7 years here proving myself.
Besides, if it doesn't work out, what's the worst thing that can come of it? I pay off most of my debts, don't have to sell my house in the current housing-slump market, and go to grad school next year? I mean, I have to re-take the GRE, but I wasn't happy with my 87th percentile four years ago anyway.
Maintaining a job, a house, relationships, and a Grove are things I'm proud of, though. They're constant studies in change and adaptation, constant sources of strife and resolution. I don't think you're too young to understand, but you are in a different paradigm. Change, for you, means new faces and new places. Change, for me, means being who I am in the way that satisfies me most. It's adding spice, not ordering a new dish. It's swapping a side instead of changing restaurants. It's seeing the changes in the seasons here in Central Ohio instead of changing the landscape to Florida.
There's nothing wrong with either view, of course. Perhaps grad school will open more doors for you than it would have for me. But I know what I need in my life, and I spend a lot of time considering how I want to interact with the paths that come and go. In this case, my vision directs me on this path, where there are old friends around to support me, where there is a Grove that can help me through the rough times, and where the radical changes in one part of my life are offset by consistency in other parts.
I had grown somewhat sad thinking of Grad school. I am excited about new opportunities here. And really, when it came down to it, that's what caused the decision.
What is all this talk of having goals set FOR you and visions HANDED to you? Was college like that for you? That's sad if so. It shouldn't've been. Undergrad for me has been all about setting my own goals and visions and using the tools given to me in undergrad in the best, most inventive ways I can in order to achieve my goals. When I was a business major, though, it was totally evil like you described.
do you not care about military history anymore? wasn't that your undergrad or were you religious studs?
I was an undergrad Military History major. I became more interested in religion, though, after I graduated. You never knew me while I was in school: I was quite passionate about history. That I found something I was more passionate about after graduation surprises me still.
However, my undergrad has served me very, very well in my post-undergrad career. In fact, I used it very recently in this job, and I used it prior to that to land the opportunity of doing this job.
I originally was interested in continuing on in history. The issue came about, though, that I wasn't so keen on what graduate-level history programs are, so much as I was interested in what history is. What I learned is that I can study history all I want without ever taking another history class. I can learn the things I really want to know without teachers and tuition. I can even go to the places that mean so much to me without being a professional student.
Besides that, I found I had a greater aptitude for religious studies: my 3.7 GPA in history is nothing compared to my 4.0 in religious studies. The subject matter inspires me in a different (and, I might admit, deeper) way than the history work did.
In the end, though, school is about validating yourself to an outside authority, and paying for the privilege. The Humanities are also different than a lot of other schools, too. My early college life was stuck in the horrific stranglehold of the honors program here, where I was told what to achieve and when to achieve it. I broke free from that my Junior year, but even then I was held to a different standard as a varsity athlete: "finish a certain percent of your undergrad work and do it now-now-now so you can get back to practice."
I think I learned more from my fencing career than I did from my GEC's, all told.
Really, the only academic freedom I ever had was after graduation, and I have really grown in that time. Maintaining that academic freedom is something I've sought for a very long time, and I've managed it so far. I don't have as much time to take classes, but I do devote all my time to them when I'm there. I'm fiercely competitive, strongly focused, and a much better student as a result. This really does seem to be because the only person I'm proving myself to is me: there are no goals of degrees, publications, or oh-my-gods-what-about-after-graduation panics.
I struggled a long time under the expectations of my father, as well. He wanted an MBA for a son, something he never was able to accomplish. He still pushes me for it every now and again. My entire career, really, has been attempts to buck the system of goals and visions of others. And at this point, I can say I've succeeded marvelously.
and because it's great when opposite paradigms clash...
you know change for me is not just running off to california instead of appreciating the seasons change, or changing all my the faces around me rather than one or two. your classification of me fails. :P if anything i'd say i'm even more focused on the subtle, gradual changes than most people around me, which is why i talk so much about the importance of balance, which i define as being something in constant fluid motion. i am not so fickle that i see things, assume i have seen them, and throw them away because they're boring; i notice the different size of the first worms every spring seasons and millions of other small changes all the time. and those i agree are very enriching.
i think the key difference between us is that 9 or perhaps 8 times out of 10 you prefer to change your attitude rather than your situation. you used to always say, well i dont like this arrangement, but ill just put up with it and think about other things i do like such that i do feel happy and everything is fine even though the arrangement hasn't changed. what's changed is your attitude and not your situation. which is change. i'm not invalidating that.
it's just different from what i often choose, which is probably 7 times out of 10 my position in a situation. my attitude has to change too, as everything is interrelated and i don't randomly change situations without first thinking about them and where i stand first, but there's no question i am more predisposed toward action and [hyper?!] proactivity. you are more passive, which is why the two philosophies sometimes clash.
Oh and how do you know which mountain ranges are older? I'm really interested in geeky geographical stuff and I kind of want to learn more about the different mountain ranges in the US if possible. :)
Taller mountains, like the Rockies, are younger: they haven't had the time to be worn away. The Appalachians are older mountains, run up far earlier, and they've had the time to be worn down through erosion throughout the years.
Apparently, the Appalachians were part of Pangaea
about 300 million years ago.
The Rockies were raised about 200 to 100 million years ago
. Of course, they started as an underwater range of little islands, which is pretty cool, too.
But really, think about the character of the two ranges: which one seems young and wild, and which one seems older and sleepier?
And, of course, how are they portrayed in our national consciousness? The Appalachians have a place of mystery, and things
happen there (think of where the Devil himself hangs out: Georgia, New England, the Carolinas). The Rockies are places where beer is brewed, where adventurous rock climbers and outdoorspersons go. The Rockies are places to be conquered, still, and the Appalachians are places for picnics, families, and generally safe hiking.
Dude that is cool shit. I don't care if it's dorky.
I'm SUPER excited to get to know the Sierras a couple of days for now... even though I won't be doing proper mountaineering, I will definitely be summitting some peaks that involve snow. YEAH!!!!
I'll make sure to wake them up if they're sleeping ;)
I'm sure you will.
Oh, tonight's PSA presentation will involve Agni. I'm covering three gods: Indra, Agni, and Soma.
Won't be there, sorry. But give Agni my love!!