How a hiss can drive you mad

Yesterday night, around 1 am, while watching a movie, I suddenly heard this hiss in my ears. I didn’t know where it came from, I didn’t know if it would go away, and I didn’t know what to do about it. The hiss lasted for about 10 minutes, after which it vanished, but later returned once more to not go away.

It was, as you can imagine, pure torture. I was ready to go to sleep but couldn’t because of the hiss and… well, thoughts churned in my head: it was while watching a movie, so this has to do something with the noise. The volume was presumably too loud, so it somehow must have damaged my ears. A quick Google search revealed that, in that case, no real treatment was available. Wikipedia says that exposure is the most common cause – about 90% of those sorts of hisses originate from too loud noises. The words kept spinning in my head: irreversible – no cure – living like this forever – how am I going to explain this to anyone– it’s in the brain, which is pretty much terra incognita as far as science is concerned – I don’t wanna be a cautionary tale – people have committed suicide over this – I wouldn’t even dare to think about the technical term Tinnitus – and so on, and all the while, the ringing in my head wouldn't stop. It was really depressing, something I don’t need right now, especially because I have exams in a couple of days. You can't scare me that easily, but I got to say, I was scared shitless at that moment. I stayed up for hours thinking these thoughts. It really was torture in its purest form.

This morning, the hiss was back. It came and went and came and went, over and over again. Sometimes it would leave me alone for 30 minutes, other times it would plague me for an hour straight. The only thing that seemed to help was swallowing: then, the hiss lowers its volume. You can imagine the tower of chewed gum sitting next to my desk! As I’m typing this, I’m putting the last piece of the pack of gum in my mouth and making a mental note that I need to go get some more.

Long story short: I just came back from the doctor’s office. He quickly examined my ears, throat and nose and explained that it was still the flu I had about two months ago (!) (I even mentioned this illness in a previous blog). The infection simply lingered and just now caused this problem because, apparently, I’m still sick, and have been all this time in-between: my sinuses are as blood-red; and due to pressure in the Eustachian tubes, my eardrums are turned inside out, banging against the insides of my ears and creating the hiss (or something to that effect, I wasn’t really paying attention anymore after he said ‘you’ll be fine in a week or so’). It’s pretty much the same as when you’re in a landing airplane – only slightly worse. With a prescription for a drug and a spray he sent me on my way, and I was very happy it wasn’t anything more serious.

However, due to the hiss still being in my ears (it's goddamn annoying!!!), I’ve come to reconsider some things. From now on, I’m going to better protect my ears and wear protective ear coverings (or what are they called again?) more often when I go to concerts and clubs. I’m going to lower the volume of the TV and MP3 player – and I strongly urge you to do the same. Take it from someone who’s been there: it’s not fun at all to have malfunctioning ears! You only have one pair, so I do implore you to protect them well!

Dutch spelling...

Those of you who either don’t know me or haven’t read my introductory post don’t know that I’m a Belgian student majoring in languages. One of my compulsory classes is Dutch Linguistics, and a large part of this is the spelling. Even though I’m a native speaker of Dutch and I’ve always been fairly good at spelling, this thing is driving me crazy. I’m taking the exam in a couple of days (the first of many - wish me luck!), which also means I won’t be updating this blog quite as often. Oh well.

As an example of how crazy Dutch spelling is, I wanted to share one word with you, with all the rules and explanations of how to correctly spell it. That word is Spanjaard (in English Spaniard), and today, I’m going to correctly divide it into syllables for you, something that is paramount if you want to spell correctly. I won’t bore you to death with the intricate details, but I just wanna point out some weird things in the spelling.

First off, Spanjaard has, as in English, 2 sets of vowels, which are a and aa. So we have to divide somewhere in between. But where? The general rule says: if there are 2 consonants between vowels, divide between them. So we get Span-jaard, right? Wrong: there is an exception: you don’t have to divide between vowels but between sounds; and nj is pronounced as one sound (it sounds like the ñ in mañana). So it should be regarded as one consonant, and in that case, the rule is: divide in front of the consonant: Spa-njaard. Unfortunately, there’s another exception: a number of consonants require you to split in-between, like sc, nh and our beloved nj. So it’s Span-jaard. That’s it, then? Nope, not at all.

Spanjaard is, in fact, a derivation, which means we’ve done this thing all wrong so far! It’s derived from Spanje and -aard. The same is true in English: Spain and -iard. This has quite some consequences: the general rule for derivations is: divide between the source word and the pre/suffix; so we get Spanj-aard. How’s that for size? Unfortunately, there is again an exception: if the suffix starts with a vowel, you should follow the normal rules, which leads us to Span-jaard (see above). Right? Wrong. If the suffix is -aard, you should split between the source word and the suffix (again!). So do we end up with Spanj-aard? Nope! As you may guess, there’s yet another exception to the exception to the exception! Some words on -aard are split with the general rule, among which, you guessed it, is Spanjaard.

In the end, the right way to split Spanjaard is Span-jaard, and you have to know all the rules above to come to that conclusion. And if you think that this is a one-of-a-kind example, guess again: I could give you scores of other examples that are equally fucked up and which I have to learn to pass this exam. See why it’s driving me mad?

On love

Today, I wanted to try something I’ve never really done before. I wanted to review and add an own perspective to what others wrote before me. I’ve wanted to do this for the longest time, and tonight, I finally found a worthy text to review. Note to the original author, my friend Laurens, who I know reads this blog: this wasn’t meant as a slam, just as a comment - and a not all too serious one at that. Damn, now he’s gonna think I’m going to slaughter him here!

While reading his Love is a battlefield, I had so many own remarks they couldn’t fit into the comment section, so I fired up my text processor, and this is the result.

Overall, the ‘paper’ has a very dark and pessimistic overtone to it (and I believe I know why – a girl nicknamed Eden – although I may be wrong).

The last few words, in time, there is hope yet for true romance, struck me as being the very core of what was being said, with the phrase for me understandably left out. I think this is what the paper is really about. Sad to say, but this is true for too many people (maybe even you!): the lack of love, or presence of the unrequited kind. Nazareth sang it in the ’70s already: love really does hurt. Or Heart’s ballad What About Love is eerily familiar to those who’ve ever been in love, even if you never heard it. Or go listen to Foreigner’s I Want To Know What Love Is. Or Phil Collins’ You Can’t Hurry Love. Or Blink-182’s The Rock Show (or any Blink song, for that matter). Or Cinderella's Don't Know What You've Got. Sorry, but I simply love music!

And then you have the ones for whom it all seems to go so smoothly. Who doesn’t have that friend who has a new lover each week? A new Dutch TV show is climbing the charts. It’s called Oh Oh Cherso, and it’s about 8 guys and girls partying, drinking, and of course spread-eagling a new chick every night. There’s an abundant selection of like shows to be watched, with many more in the making. That’s not true love. That’s instant hedonism, which is, indeed, sanctified in today’s society. Why work when you can play, and why love when you can fuck?

I think that’s not true. There is love somewhere out there. While there are some who haven’t ever been loved by another, most of us have. Just go back in your past and try to recall the feelings, the special moments, the little things and the love. Just reminisce for a moment, if you will. Feeling loved already?

Yes, it does take a huge deal of effort, but when you look past the superficiality that dominates nowadays, you’ll see a wonderful world. And yes, there’s room for romance.

To further illustrate this point, I made this chart of the list of utopian romantic love stories mentioned in the paper. Note that, as Orpheus isn’t part of history rather than mythology, I had to make an educated guess as to when he lived. Clicky for big-res. The X’s mark a period which was talked about. See how far some X’s are apart? Orpheus and Henry VIII ‘lived’ over 20 centuries apart, and you’re complaining that the last love epic was made but 13 years ago? Also, a hoard of new romance entertainment is coming out year after year after year – however, quality is highly subjective and I won’t go into that argument here.

Furthermore, I’m not convinced by the arguments. “Hollywood has … lost its touch,” the author says, adding that “[m]ost Hollywood couples as well have had several husbands and wives, turning the concept of holy matrimony in some sort of contest”. When, pray tell, has Hollywood been any good sort of role model? Partying, promiscuity and OD’ing have always been law there, so why should now be any different? And yes, there are exceptions: Matt Damon, for example, is an international mega-star, but nobody knows anything about his private life (except, of course, for his groupies and stalkers). Many others follow suit.

Yes, in the past, some men were gallant and chivalrous; but the other side is also true. For a long time, women were regarded as useful only for producing offspring; this meant rape was frequently a-okay, especially in time of war – and what nation hasn’t had one enemy at any point? Okay, there are many points and counterpoints to be made here, and I won’t go into the nitty-gritty details, but it wasn’t always sharing spaghetti with a creepy Italian playing accordion in the background, always having Paris or doing some epic dance moves!

The ancient Greeks already accused younger generations of being immoral and sickening, generation X complained about the slacktivism of youngsters, generation Y loves to resent the next generation, and so on. People look to the past for safety, because that’s what they know best. But, newsflash: in 20 years, we’ll surely look back on today and think this was a great period filled with love, happiness and glee. All times are extraordinary times!

All I can say to all of you who are in love with someone who doesn’t love you back, is advice I’ve once received and later passed on to other heartbroken souls: it’s not easy at all to get over someone, but don’t get discouraged! There is someone out there for you, you just haven’t met them yet!

70 days later...

Remember when I posted this? And how outrageous, stupid and overly moronic it was to still have no government 126 days after the federal elections?

It was just brought to my attention that we still don't have a government, even 196 days after those elections! Mind you, the government fell way before that (48 days earlier, if I still can count correctly), and I read somewhere that the meetings were adjourned 'till the new year, for at least 14 days. That will eventually make for a total of - at the very least - 258 days without a federal government!

No, we're doing awesome down here...

(I feel obligated to say that the reason this is is the highly controversial and delicate matter about BHV - in short: as always with matters this controversial, someone will lose power and money if it goes one way or the other; and that we do have a resigning federal government - it can only take care of matters which were already present when the government resigned, but doesn't have a say in anything that has since cropped up.)

I just had sex..

And it felt so good!

Nah man, the guys from The Lonely Island, known for such hits as I'm on a boat and Jizz In My Pants, just released another music video; it's so good, catchy and formitastic I wanted to share it with you, enjoy:

Merry VLC!

I've always really liked the VLC christmassy pic that replaces its normal icon around this time of year:

On the same note and before I forget: happy holidays, everyone!

Last night...

Free food, free booze, free lap dances, a 3 year old promise fulfilled, a guy dressed in a garbage can, watching 10 bikes stacked on top of each other get disentangled, (sadly, almost) making snowangels,...

One might say all this made for one fine evening!

Positive determination?

The topic for today is something that’s been on my mind lately, but I've had these thoughts for years and years. It’s kinda philosophically natured, so if you don’t like that, just skip this one. Go outside. Or read a book. Or do something useful. Anyway, on to the ontological question of the concept time.

Time: does it flow freely, unrestraint by environmental factors, going wherever it pleases to go? Does it care about us? Should it? Or is time something rigid? Something that is nothing? Or maybe we can’t perceive time too well? Can we, then, ever arrive at the true definition of time?

These are some of the greatest questions man has ever asked himself. I myself have a personal opinion on all this: I truly think that all time exists at once, but we see but a minor fraction of it at this very moment. We can’t see past our momentary constraints; to us, time passes and there’s nothing we can do about it. The present is what we perceive at this very yoctosecond.

I hear you think: dude, what about past & future? They should exist as well, shouldn’t they? My answer is: yes, but only in our perception. We can look back on what we’ve done – you can always correctly answer if I ask you e.g. what you had for dinner last night. We, in short, perceive a past.

You can be wrong if I ask you, on the other hand, what you’ll have for dinner tomorrow; but that’s only, I speculate, because humans can’t see the future. Imagine, if you please, a humanoid species that actually can see the future like we can see the past. Imagine that you are a member of this species. If I ask you now, what will you have for dinner tomorrow, you’ll answer 100% correctly. Every time. Note that I’m not saying that you, as part of this species, cannot predict the future in an absolute manner: you may not know the answer if I ask you what you’ll have for dinner in 3 weeks (just as you may not remember what you had for dinner 3 weeks ago). In short: future exists in our minds, but our human perception can neither apprehend nor understand it.

Now I hear you think: you said we perceive past and future. So are they real or not? Do they exist? I believe they don’t: that they’re just concepts we think are real; but, when faced with the real answer (which will, sadly, probably never come), we will learn that everything we thought we knew is wrong (you’ve actually been cheated like this before: think of all the lies you were told as a kid, ranging from Santa to the birds and the bees).

I simply don’t believe in time as we perceive it, I think time is like a river that flows swift and sure in one direction. We are caught in the river, inexorably dragged along, down to our personal waterfalls. We inevitably haven’t got much control of where we’re going either. We can also look at parts of the water where we were, and we sometimes catch glimpses of the place we’re going to next; but all in all, we see but small segment of a giant river.

Someone standing outside the river has full control over what he’ll see next, he can look at the spring of the river (and see the big bang) or he can go to the estuary (the apocalyptical end of time), or anywhere in between. He can view episodes of life over and over again. He can see you falling down the stairs as a kid, the construction of the Pyramids of Giza, the dinosaurs, the Battle of Waterloo etc.; much like we can view any scene from a film over and over again – just go to any random YouTube video and try to skip back and forth a couple of times. See how it’d basically work? (Note: this deity-like figure is purely exemplificative and doesn’t represent my theological views.)

2 demurs people can have inevitably follow from this idea: for one, there is no place for parallel universes. Everything that ever happened, happens or will happen, does so in but one universe: ours. No exceptions. Sorry. Another one is a widespread concern: this is dangerously similar to the pessimistic philosophy determinism: nothing matters for, whatever you do, you won’t be able to alter the future. I say, no, you are able to change the future. Each and every of your actions will resonate in the future, you simply don’t know how. Yet. So it’s interesting to do things and to see where they’ll lead you to. As such, I very much like the name Positive Determination for my views.

Some afterthoughts: some of the more literary-centered readers will certainly have noticed this post being influenced by Vonnegut’s thoughts.  I’ve always liked his writing – even though it’s stacked with sci-fi bullcrap. And again, for the last time, I’m not saying that I’m right or if what I’m saying here is real. This may very well be complete and utter nonsense. We'll probably never know.