12 thoughts on “1995:mokykla:lt:03

  1. One of the remarkable things about these photos is that they force us to think about how these kids are all now around 25, and how their lives have been running concurrently with our own, and how each of them on a day-to-day has been inhabiting a fully articulated world that knows nothing of us.

  2. :) By ‘us’ I was just referring to any individuals like me who are stumbling across these photos. It’s sort of like how we say (for example) “it started raining just now,” when in most cases it was raining beforehand, just in a region outside of our parochial concern.

  3. Hahaha. Blinky, you are too much. Dave, I think that Blinky, being one of the children in the photos (he will be 27 next month), is suggesting that he inhabits a fully articulated world that knows something of you, even if only your comment here. And, yes, that your use of “us” and “we” needed refining, as the audience includes these now-adult Lithuanian kids.

    Thanks, Kylie. :) (I say that as if they’re all mine. haha. They are.)

  4. Dave, not to get all yogic on you, but I can’t help but giggle over this example of our all being much more connected than we first imagine. :) I’m sure Andrius took your comment well. He likes to trouble make. ;)

  5. Not too yogic at all. Ironic, and a good learning experience. I get all worked up sometimes about American individualism and the view that persons are somehow causally independent of a larger context, but it’s helpful to be reminded that even if a lot of people may have that view, and even if there are frustrating implications re: the prospects for social change, we (and they) are all still connected. I wonder now if I wrote my initial comment right after a class in which students were insisting on the view as gospel, without any argument, or perhaps after reading some conservative critique of healthcare reform. p.s. Hi Blinky!

  6. @blinky: no, not in the least. you were a godsend. as mentioned, there’s been a shift. but either way, yes, you always mean well. ;)

    @dave: you are right that because the smug and condescending beliefs about human individualism/selfishness/greed (yes, i will make that leap) are embedded in modern american culture does not make them accurate. It seems to be a very convenient argument for comfortable liberals who don’t want to actually do anything toward the social changes we very much need. This isn’t conscious or intentional but it is easy. In my experience, humans (both strangers and loved ones) can be tremendously selfless and generous. We can also be horrid and treacherous. That doesn’t mean we shut down and pretend the latter is inevitable. Or that life can be boiled down to a simple equation of good and bad.

  7. i’d think it was you who were godsent Anna :P and the core cant be shifted ;)
    hey Dave! you talk like a professor ;)

  8. Blinky, are you calling the trouble-making (or not) core? I’d say it’s fairly superficial. Furthermore (drawing on our other conversation), a romantic is not someone who spews lines to get laid, but a way of viewing the world, whether it is acted upon or not. Self-consciousness might affect the behavior, but not the view (or, the core).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *