Ten twenty sevenPosted: April 8, 2008
I’m sitting here nursing a cup of kimchi instant noodles, using the word “nurse” in the same way an author would describe someone at a bar with a beer, (Which I would nurse instead of the noodles if I had any in the vicinity), blasting the indiepop nonsense and talking to a genuinely interesting person via the alphabet sent over a series of tubes.
One can wonder how I got into a situation like this and probably figure it all out with nothing more than a legal pad, sharpie, and ten to twenty seven yes or no questions, but then of course I’ll know two things about the interviewer: 1, They have ridiculous skill in deductive and inductive reasoning, and 2, they obviously want to know about my life. Obviously, that gives me the heeby-jeebies.
See, the real question is not “why” I found myself inhaling MSG and pre-cooked egg noodles while conversing with someone who is genuinely interesting. It’s the potential outcomes that should be put into consideration. Instead of thinking “why”, think, “how!?”. How can he stop the debilitating addiction to instant noodles? How can he understand said genuinely interesting person?
More often than not, the evidence that we have in front of us makes the reasoning behind it obsolete. It’s there because it’s there, and we have to work from that.