LAST YEAR | NEXT YEAR | CURRENT
MONTHLY | |
 

Monday, February 25

 
 
 
 
 

Arabianranta, 15:43

 
 

I woke up feeling fresh and alert, and cold. The temperature had dropped and I felt as though I should have had a coat on all night. As if to prove the point, the ground had frozen and all the water that had melted in yesterday’s sun now formed icy lakes. I slid to the bus stop.

I sat down at work and drafted a marvellously boastful letter singing my own praises for Nathalie to use as the basis for a letter to the Fulbright committee as part of my application for a scholarship. We had a long discussion about it and she amended chunks of it, to make it even more boastful. She then stuck it on a digital letterheading; I printed it out; she signed it; and I scanned it to turn it digital again.

I then went through my to-do list and banged out a series of emails to all sorts of people, some of them students.

Jutta had spent the morning teaching and she turned up about midday. We took a trip to S-market where I bought fruit and Jutta filled up a large shopping bag with all kinds of produce.

On the way back I dreamed up a forehandsuppgift for this year’s entrance examination, which saved us having to have a meeting about it when we got back. I felt that it might actually prove better than last year’s. No doubt we will find out in May.

I left Arcada about 15:30 and headed to the library to collect the three Was (Not Was) cds I had ordered.

I catch a bus because the pavement looks worse than Vartiokylä and as I get off to walk into the library a woman walks along the path past the graffiti of a digital squirrel. I photograph the moment. One of the cds will turn up as a long playing record and, amused as I feel, I will hand it back because I have nothing to play it on.

I will hurry home, check the post box, and let the cat out. I will then settle down to reread an essay by Charles Sanders Peirce – Evolutionary Love – before discussing it with Scott. I have come to believe that Peirce smuggles fraudulent arguments into the essay using the kind of misdirection and hand-waving that stage conjurers use. Scott, however, will prefer to change the subject in all sorts of interesting ways rather than agree or disagree.

I have a reason for wanting to discuss this. I want to know how reverently I should treat Peirce in one particular sense. I want to use some of his arguments as part of a call to action, and for this I want to step aside from the idea that his thoughts form a single coherent system. I will want to know Scott’s reaction to my critique of this essay specifically because I have come to think that the arguments used in Evolutionary Love easily lend themselves to this kind of argument.

I will finish wondering whether I should try again next week.