The server's voice gets me every time. Stir the coffee, hahaha.

Diner Guy

The city was the same, I was the same, but the way I saw it had changed --- dramatically.

TRANSCRIPT
Hello everyone, and welcome to Elsewhere with G.  Today, I’d like to tell you about how our perception can influence our experience of a place. When I was little, I was convinced that London, England, was a wonderful place. I went there quite frequently, because I had family living there, and I always looked forward to the trip. It had many things that I appreciated as a small child – material attractions that one couldn’t find in Mauritius at the time. The food seemed more familiar to me than what was available in Mauritius, because my mum didn’t cook typical Mauritian recipes. The way they spoke English was much more familiar to me, because I remember struggling in Mauritius with the accent and with the way people spoke, because obviously, that wasn’t what I heard when I spoke to my mum, and it was just destabilizing. Maybe destabilizing is too strong a word; it was just a bit weird, always being the one who didn’t speak like the others in English class.

So, I liked being in a place where people spoke in a way that seemed normal to me. And what else? I liked that people seemed relaxed, seemed to be sociable, seemed to have friends beyond their immediate family. My perception of London at the time, before I was eleven or twelve, was influenced by my mother, who had had a great time working, and living there, who is a British citizen, and who always said that being in England was much better than being in Mauritius. And then, something weird happened. I remember really looking forward to the trip one year – oh, I forgot to mention, that, of course, the other thing we couldn’t get that easily in Mauritius were high-quality toys. I really liked a toy called Polly Pocket. It isn’t what you find in stores today. Polly Pockets were these tiny, well, not tiny, these small boxes that could hold in the palm of your hand, and each one was themed. There was one that was shaped like a flower, and when you opened it, there was this beautiful, painted natural setting, and little figurines that you could place in various places. Sometimes, they made it quite fancy. I had one of a cathedral, where you could place the prince and the princess in front of it, and make them dance by pressing something. I can’t remember now. Anyway, I loved Polly Pocket, and couldn’t find them in Mauritius. Like I said, a child’s dream, being able to buy toys in London, dolls or Polly Pockets especially.

Yes, but, one year, I was about twelve. I wanted badly to go to England. We planned the trip. It just wasn’t like before. I remember thinking that I don’t know what I had seen before, how it could have seemed so magical to me, because it certainly didn’t seem magical now. It seemed crowded, dirty. I wasn’t a fan of spending my time the way people around me were spending their time. I started to distinguish between different kinds of accents, even within the same country, and found that some were grating, while others were more pleasing. It was a perception that I didn’t have before. I felt that I couldn’t see it the way that I used to, just a year ago, and that was very sad. I kept hoping that something would change, that one year, I’d go back, and that it would be wonderful, magical, and special again, but it never was. Now I can’t say that I particularly like London. I wouldn’t go there if I didn’t have a good reason to. It’s really sad, I think, when you start to notice things, or you learn more about a place. You start to see it the way other people do, maybe more knowledgeable people, and you lose the ability to find those little moments of joy or silly pleasures like the Polly Pockets.

So that’s my story for today. Have you ever had this experience, where suddenly a place that you loved looked completely different to you, to the point where you didn’t want to return? I’ll see you in the next one. Bye!

Losing London (click here for the transcript)

When the "grief" of spectators overshadows the event itself.

TRANSCRIPT
Hello everyone, and welcome to Elsewhere with G. Today, I’d like to talk to you about the place that emotional performances take us when we view them in a group. When I was growing up, I hated watching melodramatic, or simply dramatic, or otherwise sad movies with anyone. When I watched them with my parents or even with my friends, I always felt like I had to make a joke, or downplay what was happening, or make a comment about how it wasn’t realistic or how it was exaggerated. I remember feeling very irritated when the people watching the movie with me showed emotion, teared up, or made comments about how terribly sad it all was.

I was thinking about why it bothered me so much, because it’s not that I don’t like emotional movies, emotional performances. In fact, if I watch them by myself, alone, I’m quite likely to tear up. It’s when I’m watching them with a crowd, and there’s a certain expected reaction that I close myself off, that I can no longer be influenced by the emotion, that I can no longer feel what the performer wants to transmit.

And I think that in a time when many tragic, or simply sad events are experienced publicly through social media, you know, with people sharing, re-sharing stories, videos, pictures, and giving their take on the event, I think that some people, including me, have become numb to the tragedy, and instead of feeling emotion that we might feel if we read about the event, and not so much the reactions of others and how much it’s affected them – and by others, I don’t mean victims, I mean bystanders, or people who weren’t even there but who saw what happened afterwards, through pictures, videos, or simply heard about it. 

So, I think the problem is that there’s so much focus on how the event has affected witnesses – far-removed witnesses – that it’s all about the performance of a reaction, all about how we’re supposed to reaction, the appropriate amount of emotion and sadness that we’re supposed to feel, and for me anyway, it has quite the opposite effect. Instead of feeling sad, I feel irritated by what I’m supposed to feel, and by what I consider to be faux-sadness. Sadness that’s not real, that won’t last beyond the catastrophe, that’s more for show, for approval from others, for social identity, than about a genuine engagement with the trauma of the event.

Anyway, I know that’s a controversial opinion, and I’ve read all the articles about how we shouldn’t shame people for being affected by something. I’m not shaming people for being affected. I just don’t believe that most people really are affected; not to the extent they claim to be. And I wish we’d be more private in our sadness, because I think it would be far more genuine.

The shared experience of emotional performances (click here for the transcript)

Going without food for a few more hours, or even a couple of days, isn't extreme. It won't kill you, and in fact, it helps you see more clearly.

TRANSCRIPT
The serene places fasting can take us

Hello everyone, and welcome to Elsewhere with G. My name is Guyomar, and today I’d like to tell you about the places that fasting can take us. I didn’t grow up fasting, but I was always aware that it was something that people around me did for religious reasons. The most memorable example I have is of my Muslim friends fasting during Ramadan. I know that they had a feast every day with their family, with their close friends, but nonetheless, it was an all-day fast without water, as well as without food. I had a few Catholic friends as well who fasted, though it was a lot less common. You know, for Lent, they would usually give up something but it wouldn’t be a full-on fast.

A couple of years ago, I became interested in fasting and in the idea that we don’t need to eat so frequently. If you’ve lived in the United States, you know that people are constantly pushing food on you. If you have a meeting, it’s sometimes a lunch meeting. Even if it’s not a lunch meeting, there’ll be snacks. There’ll be pizza, there’ll be cookies, there’ll be donuts…It’s become common, for example, for students to eat during class, during lecture, sometimes even during discussion classes, as if it’s completely normal, because “Oh, I’m hungry, I have to eat now!” I’ve read a number of articles and books that push back against this culture of constantly eating and that argue that it’s not at all necessary. So, I’ve done fasts in the past, you know, three-day fasts, two-day more frequently, but recently I started fasting daily for sixteen hours.

I think it’s one of the easier fasts you can do. Basically, you don’t eat for sixteen hours, so, for example, I’ve just had dinner and I won’t eat until lunch time. And you eat everything that you normally would in an 8-hour window. People have different approaches to how they do it. I do two meals per day. I know other people, some people do one meal a day only. Anyway, when you speak to a lot of people about fasting, they think that it’s starving yourself, that you’re depriving yourself of food, of essential nutrients, that you’re doing something extreme and crazy, when it’s not at all crazy. I know that in college, for example, if I didn’t feel hungry, I just didn’t eat breakfast. If I didn’t get into the habit of snacking mid-morning, of not waiting until a meal, I was fine.

I’ve been fasting daily for a while now, and I think that I actually feel clearer-headed, more concentrated, more focused than when I was having three meals a day, snacks here and there. I feel much calmer, much more stable and able to focus than when I was constantly having a snack whenever I felt like it – and most of the time, I don’t have cravings. I don’t feel that I absolutely need to go and eat something. It’s quite amazing actually, how the more you eat, the more you feel like you need to eat constantly, and the less frequently you eat – over time, you know, I think within a week or maybe a couple of weeks – those feelings subside, and you realize that you’re not hungry and that what you’re doing is fine, and that you’re not going to die if you don’t eat until after class. 

I just wanted to share that with you. I wanted to push back against the idea that we have to eat all the time, that we have to listen to our body, and eat whenever we’re hungry. I don’t agree with that at all. I don’t think that what I’m doing is extreme at all. I feel good. I feel less focused on food. And I feel stable – you know, in a neutral mood – and able to focus on my language acquisition and stories. Anyway, that’s all I wanted to say today. Thanks for listening. Bye!

The serene places fasting can take us (click here for the transcript)

Focusing on love to the detriment of dignity.

TRANSCRIPT
Hello everyone. My name is Guyomar, and you’re listening to Elsewhere with G. Today I’d like to talk to you about the places that rabbis can take us. Sometimes I listen to Rabbi Manis Friedman. He is based in New York and he has some very wise things to say about many topics, I think, but especially about love. He says things that I haven’t heard others talk about, and he does it in such a way that’s quite original. I find the way he uses examples to illustrate his point funny and very individual. There’s this idea in modern marriages, in modern love, that the most important thing is to show love to your children, to your spouse, that long-term, it’s the most important thing. You always have to remind each other, you always have to remind your children that you feel love for them. He says – I’m summarizing his argument – that love is not the most important thing and that’s what we get wrong about relationships in our time.  It’s often the reason why relationships go sour – because we focus on love to the detriment of what really matters, and that’s respect and dignity.

He gave an example that I thought was hilarious. He said that some people, some couples become far too familiar with each other. So, they lounge around the house in pyjamas, in bathrobes, don’t shower, speak to each other any old way, shout at each other from one room to the other – they become too comfortable. They become too familiar and there’s no dignity in that. He said that we’d be unwilling to open the door for somebody delivering a parcel, for example, in a bathrobe. We’d be embarrassed about that, but we don’t seem to have any problem doing it in front of our spouse, when really, that’s the person who matters most.

He thinks that long-term, couple who are successful, whose relationship works, preserve that dignity. They don’t become too familiar with each other. They don’t become lazy in front of each other. They still see the other person as somebody to respect and with whom you can’t just let yourself go completely. You can’t just indulge in all your bad habits and all your bad traits. I think that’s so true. Familiarity and feeling comfortable with another person, and feeling you don’t have to put on pretenses and airs is one of the nice parts of a long-term relationship. 

For the rest, comment below and let me know you’d like the entire transcript.

Rabbis on marriage (click here for the transcript)

Please don't come over unannounced.

TRANSCRIPT
Hello everyone, and welcome to Elsewhere with G. My name is Guyomar, and today I’d like to tell you about the places that unexpected guests take us. I haven’t had an unexpected guest for a long time. Usually, nobody comes here because I don’t give out my address very easily and so it was a bit of a surprise this morning when somebody rang the doorbell much earlier than expected, and showed up at our front door. It took me back to when I was growing up, and relatives would just turn up at our doorstep. Well, they’d walk into the garden, and then, even if we were busy, they would hang around near the door, just wait until somebody answered. Then, they’d make themselves at home, stay several hours for tea…you just couldn’t get rid of them even if you had other things to do. It’s been a long time since somebody just dropped in as if they think you’re just going to be there and available, with nothing else to do. Honestly, I don’t miss that kind of culture at all. I didn’t like the fact that people would startle you and show up unannounced, without giving any warning whatsoever. The thing I liked the least was the assumption that you were just going to be available for them, and that they lingered, that they stayed much longer than they should have, instead of being quick, instead of just being considerate, and not putting you in the awkward position of having to shoo them away. I don’t what it’s like in your culture – do people just show up unexpected at friends’ houses, at relatives’ houses, or do people try to plan in advance, be considerate of other people’s time? Are they aware that there are other commitments the person may have, or that maybe they don’t want to be disturbed that day? Maybe they’re taking care of things around the house. Maybe things aren’t ready, in a presentable state for visitors and see, and it’s embarrassing when somebody just comes over. Then it’s a stress for you to have to play host when you weren’t prepared for that.

Anyway, I’m curious to hear your perspectives on this topic. Thank you.

Unexpected guests (click here for the transcript)

The mere fact that it's always been a certain way isn't a strong enough justification for it to remain as such.

TRANSCRIPTION
Hello everyone, and welcome to Elsewhere with G. My name is Guyomar, and today I’d like to talk to you about what happens when we challenge convention. I’ve noticed that people often react very negatively, very vehemently when a new idea is presented that goes against conventional wisdom, that suggests a different way of doing things, that’s not what people have been doing for a long time. Often, there’s an appeal to tradition – “Well, we’ve always done this, so it must be good”; “It’s always been this way, so we should keep doing it like this. There’s been no disaster, no catastrophe, so this is good enough.” But what if it can be better? There may be not be any catastrophe in some cases, but there may be no real benefit, and the results may be inferior to what you could achieve if you changed something.

I understand that new ideas should be challenged. I’m also against innovation for innovation’s sake. I don’t believe that what’s new, what’s contemporary is necessarily better than what’s old, what’s classic and I hate the popular narrative of progress, that we’ve come so far and that we’re so much more knowledgeable, so much wiser and more sophisticated than our ancestors. I don’t think that’s the case. I’m neither somebody who likes appeals to tradition nor am I in love with our contemporary world. I just think that if it’s obvious that something isn’t working, we should try to do better, and if evidence suggests that something new works better, I think that we should have an open mind and not become so vehement, not become so emotional and attached to what’s familiar that we don’t see clearly. 

For example, in language learning, there’s often very strong and almost angry pushback against natural methods, against learning through comprehensible input, against the idea that grammar doesn’t have to be taught explicitly. People say that it doesn’t work, that it’s for people who aren’t thoughtful, aren’t analytical, just want to have a good time, have fun, want edutainment and that teaching traditionally – teaching grammar explicitly – gets you results faster. But I don’t think we’re comparing the same thing. I think that in some cases, teaching grammar directly and doing the traditional drills may get you to perform faster on familiar tasks where you’ve learned the format and you know the cues, but I’m not at all convinced, based on what I’ve read, that it leads to language acquisition.

Language acquisition is slow. By nature, it’s going to require a lot of time, but it happens, and it can happen in a matter of a few years depending how far your native language is removed from your target language. The point is that it gets you there. It gets you to acquire that language, to understand it and to have good instincts about how to speak, to communicate naturally, whereas I’ve heard countless stories – I think we’ve all heard them – about people who’ve studied English formally since childhood as a second language and who still have trouble understanding a vary basic conversation and who don’t feel they can say a word fifteen years later, or sometimes twenty years later. Therefore, it’s clear to me that there’s something that doesn’t work about the traditional method.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (click here for the transcript)

On the benefits of structure, deadlines, and a little pressure.

Goodbye dear listeners!

TRANSCRIPT
Hello everyone, and welcome to Elsewhere with G. My name is Guyomar, and today I’d like to take you Elsewhere with me one last time. Yes, that’s right, this is the last episode of Elsewhere with G. Today, what I’d like to talk about is the places that structure can take us, that deadlines, that a little bit of pressure can take us. I don’t think this is a new idea. I’ve heard many people talk about the fact that when they have a whole day free, they tend to waste, or the longer they give themselves to complete something, the longer they tend to take, and for that reason, they tend to schedule important things and also limit the time for certain tasks because you’re more likely to be productive. And I have really seen the effects of structure, of scheduling, of having deadlines in the first half of this year.

Now, before this year, I didn’t really have that much structure and I had certain nebulous goals, for example, improve my Russian to the point where I can hold conversations on literary themes, or be in better shape…what else? Not let my Spanish and Italian become horrible. Create helpful, useful and interesting content for my students. I did a bit of all of this. You know, I was working a bit, I was learning a bit of Russian, I was fairly active, you know, I enjoyed hiking for example, but I wasn’t really that consistent for quite a while, and there was no structure in place. There was no pressure.

Then, this year, I changed a few things. Partly, things changed because of external forces. For example, I had more students requesting story listening, storytelling courses, so having these lessons booked, and knowing that I had to tell these students a story, that they counting to provide this service that they were paying for, has helped me be more productive in my writing than I’ve ever been, including at that time when I was a graduate student. I’ve regularly written stories, sometimes three or four a week, some better than others, but I’ve been writing, and now I have quite a collection of stories intended for language learners. That’s the first thing.

Also, now I have a schedule for when I eat. I know, I know, some of you think I’m crazy, but I fast regularly. I’ve been doing this for about, let’s see, about…it’s been two months. It’s the two-month anniversary of fasting. So, I do an easy intermittent fast most days, 16:8, and some days, I go up to 24 hours. Right now, I’m doing a 72-hour fast. That’s been very helpful as well, in terms of feeling healthy and more energetic. Knowing when I’m eating, scheduling meals, and also thinking in advance about what exactly is going into the meal. And I no longer cave to familial or social pressure, to just eat whatever, whatever’s there. For example, you know that I no longer eat pasta or bread, all that kind of stuff, so there’s a lot of structure in food as well, in eating.

With language learning, I’ve been taking a few lessons again. I’ve spoken to a few teachers, and I’ve decided that if I’m ever going to finish One Hundred Years of Solitude in Spanish, well, I need to have someone to whom I’m accountable. Someone who knows about Latin American literature, someone who can discuss these topics intelligently. So I’ll have classes once a week in Spanish, for now, and perhaps Russian as well. And I think that helps, you know…I don’t want to embarrass myself going into a class unprepared, with nothing to say, so there, the structure is useful to me, as well, even though I prefer spending most of my time reading, listening quietly, absorbing the language…

On structure, deadlines and pressure (final episode) (click here for the transcript)

Hafez - Ghazal (299)

پرنده گفت: راستی چرا پر زدن رو کنارگذاشتی؟

انسان منظور پرنده را نفهمید ولی باز خندید.

پرنده گفت: نمیدانی چقدر جای تو در آسمان خالیست.

انسان دیگر نخندید. 

انگار ته ته خاطراتش چیزی را به یاد آورد .

چیزی که نمی دانست چیست. 

شاید یک آبی دور یک اوج دوست داشتنی.

پرنده گفت: غیر از تو پرنده های دیگری را هم می شناسم که پر زدن از یادشان رفته است.

درست است که پرواز برای یک پرنده ضرورت است

اما اگر تمرین نشود فراموشش میشود ...


#بالهایت_را_کجا_جا_گذاشتی 

#نظر_آهاری

Diner Guy

Jerry

Recent comments

Elsewhere with G

Related tracks