let’s talk about violence.

well, we’ll get to that in a minute.

let’s talk about class, in fact.

for years, i have said that i want to teach. more than twenty of them, in fact. and i am well on my way to becoming a teacher. the only thing that can stand in my way is a small group of powerful-yet-inept people. i don’t believe in group paranoia. they’re not all out to get me. the world couldn’t care less, in general, whether i wake up tomorrow. but there is a small group of conspirators in the faculty of education intent on tearing my life apart by the threads. a subject for another day, though. and there is still hope.

but teaching is my lifeblood, to say the least. other people love chocolate. or swimming. or sex.

they should try teaching. puts chocolate in a whole new light.

the other thing that i keep saying to people is that the age group makes no difference. middle school, high school, university, grad school. all the same to me. subject is irrelevant, too. i’m good at speaking on english. but there are plenty of other things that i can teach. and i don’t have a particular bias toward one of them. this confuses people.

they believe that you get to be a teacher by having a particular subject close to your heart and communicating that subject to other people. i beg to differ. teaching isn’t so much an action as a state of mind.

it’s about being a teacher rather than being a learner. that’s not to say that learning doesn’t continue from birth until death. but teaching is a break with learning being the principle function of life. we humans are learning beings. but there is a point at which some of us say that what we want to do is help other people to learn, rather than continue with the en-masse collection and processing of information, ourselves.

and then we become teachers.

at least, the good ones do. the others become babysitters, whose knowledge is dangerous and whose intentions are self-concentrated. don’t get me wrong. i teach because i love it. but i teach to help the students. those teaching-is-learning people teach because it’s the easiest way to keep learning. and that’s beyond sad.

but why am i telling you all of this today?

today was one of the best classes that i’ve ever had.

that’s not to say that i didn’t cry during the class. and it wasn’t exactly a case of tears-of-joy.

but that’s a whole other matter.

i got to lead a class discussion on the impact of violent video games and media on students. and it may be the last time i get to do anything of the sort in the near future. that’s what was so sad about it. but it did prove one very important point for me.

i don’t care about the subject, the age, or the location. give me a group of people who can learn and i’ll give you a class to remember.

any questions?

i wonder what it is about pairs that people find to be so satisfying.

no, i don’t wonder. i know. it’s physicality. but they say that it goes deeper than that.

and while i don’t believe them, i may as well attempt to see what it is that they keep telling me about. why is it that couples are so popular, while friendships die?

i remember a time when groups were the new alone. i moved from spending time with individuals to spending time with groups, large and small, until the wee hours of the mornings. it doesn’t feel particularly long ago. perhaps a few years. and then something happened.

it may be the location change.

humans are social beings. it’s no secret but that seems to find itself more interpretations than repetitions.

a few years ago, i made a temporary shift in my policy on formal relationships. i allowed myself to partake in the couple equation. it was a massive mistake, to say the least. that’s not to say that i didn’t truly care about her; far from it. i don’t hear from my first girlfriend anymore but i’d still be there for her if she ever needed it. we all have our regrets but caring for someone is pure and forever.

my mistake was neglect.

i forgot the basic principle of group proximity and neglected my friends, which seems to have convinced many of them that i simply don’t care. and that is patently untrue.

i vowed never to do it again and promptly found the person whom i will always consider my soulmate. what we had went far beyond the typical definition of a relationship, though. there was time for others and, while it was never enough group activity for me, it worked.

but what is it that makes people want to be in pairs rather than in groups?

i don’t see the benefit.

we seem to have the ability to function in groups. is it that we get tired of having people around or is it that we get addicted to sex and forget that there is life beyond the twosome?

when i lived in a small town, miles from the city, people came to visit me spontaneously. when i asked why this was so infrequent, the answer was always the same. i lived in a small town, miles from the city. and there was no public transit. not to mention that people got summarily lost every time they ended up trying to visit.

so i decided to fix that. when i moved to vancouver, i found myself a lovely flat in east downtown, right on an express bus route and dead-center in a city that is the size of a postage stamp and walking-friendly.

and i think the amount of spontaneous visits is at an all-time low. but at least people don’t complain about me living far outside the city, anymore. i suppose that’s a plus.

there are all kinds of things that one can do alone, though, so i shan’t complain.

plus, when my friends get particularly concerned about me, they don’t so much visit and do things. i simply end up in hospital.

ah yes. two might be lonely. but one, at least, is safe.